That's because we have been trained on a model where midwits speak with the exact same authority on any given subject as this author does. It's very difficult to read a blog post-style article on here without assuming that the author is a blowhard spouting nonsense whose sample size is 1. Basically, the odds are against you.
It won't change anything. This isn't to do with facebook per-se, you'd just get "unlinked" from whatever arbitrators or aggreggators of a decentralized alternative exist, and still be labeled a social outcast and a conspiracy theorist. It's not a technology problem, rather it's one of imbeciles.
It also exists on HN. There is a bevvy of topics we are not allowed to discuss here because dang will point to some arbitrary guidelines saying how "that's not allowed here" and ban you. It's the same shit everywhere.
Basically, the moment you step outside of the given narrative and what is and isn't allowed to be questioned, you should have zero (or less than zero, actually) expectation of having a platform where you can voice your concerns, and heaven forbid that your online persona be linked with your personal details, because if it is, you are in so much deep shit it's not even worth it for most people to utter certain words.
>Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially.
After OWS I find it hard to disagree with this statement.
Welcome to the new far-right.