There's no alleged about it. When far-left publisher, the Guardian, published a completely unverified Trump Russia dossier, they received no condemnation from Twitter. Yet, when the NY Post publishes proof of a Democrat illegally using his political office to enrich his family, all of sudden publishers need to start proving every last detail of their story before they can post to Twitter?
Out of curiosity, which do you think is less credible? Both primarily write stories that advance the political interests of their respective parties and both rarely verify the accuracy of information that supports their party. The only real difference between them is that Breitbart writes all their headlines in all-caps and NYT uses the less obnoxious sentence case.
Wealth taxes are the equivalent of stealing from somebody just because you know you can get away with it. They are morally wrong even if they are beneficial to you personally.
The Guardian is a bigger threat to democracy than Facebook. At least Facebook allows some level of political dissent. The Guardian is non-stop one-sided political propaganda masquerading as news.
Advertising has more competition than probably any other industry except restaurants. In addition to the big digital advertising shops (Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Reddit), you can also buy print advertisements, radio advertisements, television advertisements, billboard advertisements, bus advertisements, etc, all from hundreds of different sources.
They have plenty of options. They choose to use Facebook because it's one of the better options.
Stealing from people to help the poor is very different from helping the poor by granting wider freedoms to the entire population. It's not hypocritical to support the latter but not the former.
Your argument basically boils down to: "Rich people refuse to slit their throats to give blood to the poor, therefore rich people aren't allowed to complain that lockdowns hurt the poor." It's intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant.
Have burger flippers at McDonalds really gotten 2x more productive since 1968? I highly doubt it. I would expect most low-skill labor has not gotten any more productive.
Also, commondreams.org is a known socialist website. Their claims on economic productivity should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.
Do you really think the Iranian government is going to subpoena twitter to acquire evidence that Iran committed war crimes and then prosecute themselves?
Citizen outrage is the only lever we have to prevent governments from committing war crimes. If you support blocking access to the public, you're essentially saying these governments should be allowed to commit war crimes.
Individuals are also free to sink as much of their resources into it as they want.
The fact of the matter is political conversations have high risk of annoying/frustrating/alienating their participants. To have these conversations at work is just making employees less productive and asking for a controversy.