I am referring to these points of the testimony:

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/FC8A558E-824E...

> The result has been a system that amplifies division, extremism, and polarization — and undermining societies around the world. In some cases, this dangerous online talk has led to actual violence that harms and even kills people. In other cases, their profit optimizing machine is generating self-harm and self-hate — especially for vulnerable groups, like teenage girls. These problems have been confirmed repeatedly by Facebook’s own internal research.

While she is correct that facebook has allowed people to talk that's led to violence (some of it very justified... see the arab spring, etc), and that facebook contributes to division, I don't believe the government should be in the business of regulating the speech of individual users of these websites. Ultimately, that just means the government just gets to squash dissenting voices. Ending the 'dangerous online talk' may today mean stopping violent extremists, but may tomorrow become "Don't discuss anti-government policy messages because it may inspire some people to commite violence" which is a slippery slope.

For example, the whistleblower claims that some online talk amplifies extremism which 'undermines societies around the world'. Some societies deserve to be undermined. Few would batt an eye if Facebook were used by North Korean dissidents to organize around toppling that country's dictatorship.

You should pay attention to what's going on before commenting on out of date news.

Also, a similar case in washington of an old lady florist forced to provide flowers for an event she doesn't believe in. This is like asking a jewish deli to cater the nazis.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gay-couple-wins-case-florist...

In that case, the SC explicitly denied the request, thus de facto legalizing forcing individual people with consciensce disagreements working in their own business to do business with those they disagree with. This is an obvious violation of the individual right to freedom of conscience.

Meanwhile, facebook, a multi-billion dollar powerful corporation, which does not enjoy constitutional rights neither by nature nor law, is given a free pass to exercise its conscience. Sorry... I'll speak for the little guy.