I was a bit overwhelmed by your Wall of Text (tm) at first, but I decided to check your comment history and figured, yeah okay let me dig in, and I think you made some interesting points. Here are my thoughts...
> Note the Machiavellian manner in which it is framed i.e. this is a 'Facebook' problem, when in reality, it's not Zuck out there making the rules so much as it's people on FB having a voice.
I agree that Facebook has become somewhat of a proxy topic for the Internet. It's also probably accurate that some people in power are concerned about an open press -- not FB's power specifically -- and are using the FB situation to attack the core ideas of the Internet. Somewhere deep inside of this situation however is a much more complex conversation about how the Internet should work, because if Facebook is really the best model for information flow online then we really do have a problem. As you say, there should be actually a concern that idiots in their basement making things up have more influence than researchers.
This is where I get a little uncomfortable with the framing that this situation is only "Facebook versus Traditional Media & the Powerful," because it deframes the conversation that Facebook is a monopoly over the commons which shouldn't exist. Facebook is a very opinionated system, from its focus on connecting everybody as maximally as possible to its algorithm design to its UI design to its privacy invasions. I hope - perhaps naively - that general dissatisfaction with them can lead to new openings in the market as people look for alternatives, and that it happens before any kind of regulatory intervention starts.
> Francis was a Political Agent, from day 1.
Anybody who understands media knows that Francis' leaks were heavily coordinated, for all the reasons you say. That required backing of some kind; more than she probably could provide herself (though she did apparently have some crypto money?).
I don't know what else to do with that information, and I don't really want to get distracted with that part of the debate. The things we talk about end up becoming the thing that matters. This is why I also started my original post with the point about Facebook probably dropping these stories. This gets us into the media war that's being waged between both sides rather than the relevant issues: is FB good for the world as it is right now, and if not then what would make it better?
> Moreover, it's a bit hypocritical to be talking about breaking up FB when there are likely more traditional issues of monopoly at Google and Amazon.
Those conversations are happening too. FB is just the one getting dogged the hardest right now, and (as I said) probably because they're the least popular of those companies.