Huh, shocker. So what you're saying is that the idiots who want to defend the 'Its a private company bro they can run their site however they want' argument have been demonstrated to either:
Be acting in bad faith, knowing that these tools will be used to suppress left-wing and pro-worker activists and journalists.
Be the same kind of naive that gave the Bush administration the PATRIOT Act, the NSA apparatus, and carte blanche to declare war on any predominantly-Muslim nation, because they thought George Bush was a trustworthy guy.
To anyone who is legitimately shocked by this news: Mark Zuckerberg is a fucking billionaire. Is it really so hard to fathom that a fucking billionaire, with personal control over one of the main hubs of the largest information and media sharing system of all time, might be using his (unelected, untransparent, and unaccountable) influence over what information is presented to users in order to protect his gargantuan and tenuous grasp on what essentially amounts to being able to control what people think is happening? Might that not be in his interest, and the interest of the members of his socio-economic class? Perhaps he may be suppressing the outlets which are calling for various forms of redistribution of his (unelected, untransparent, and unaccountable) power and personal fortune in an egalitarian, democratic fashion?