You started out with Facebook is not a private company, because it is publicly traded. I noted that it is still a private company because it is not responsible to the "public" but to its stockholders. Therefore, still private.

So, then, what needs to happen is a whole bunch of gun aficionados need to but FB stock and put a shareholder proposal up for vote that says FB will play fair when it comes to gun articles. Depending on the current mix of shareholders, a stake as small as five percent may be able to swing the vote.

I have mixed feelings. In principle, I agree with your premise...private business, run it as you see fit. However, FB has almost gotten to the position of being a monopolistic utility. Once that happens a public interest component could come into the mix. In any case, voting with your feet and your dollars is the most effective way to act. Here in Utah the main classifed adds are run on KSL.com. Over a year ago KSL said they would no longer run gun adds (REALLY? IN UTAH REFUSE TO RUN GUN ADDS?! You have to understand Utah history to see why this is so anti Utah culture.) Anyway, in short order two websites popped up, utahguns.com and utahgunexchange.com. Since they focus on just the gun market they are more effective than KSL anyway.
If FB won't run gun articles, someone could probably make a chunk of change if they put up their own social network site that encouraged talk about guns.

They have the right to include or exclude whatever they want. However, they have a moral responsibility to be fair. If I were a firearms company owner or CEO, I'd close down my Facebook page and double down on their competitors.

The company has a responsibility to its stockholders but not the general public. Therefore, Zenphamy is correct . Publicly traded does not mean owned by the state, or for that matter the general public. As in all things in Capitalism, you gotta pay to play.

There is a question of ethics, and there is a question of rights. You are correct in that they have the right to be disagreeable. The question I believe johnpe asks is is the behavior contrary to ethical guidelines. In the latter, I believe the answer is yes.

I suspect they might find themselves within the 'public square' ruling that Walmart / Target / etc. is subject to. Because commerce changed, there really isn't a downtown city sidewalk & block anymore (at least not with people walking on them) and the box stores became the place of commerce. Charity groups / political organizations / etc sued and was determined to be the city square of sorts, and they have the right to setup their tables pitch their viewpoints.

I tried to find the reference for it, but that goes back to the 90s unfortunately, all I found was Walmart contributing or being sued by charities.

nice to know where they stand on the issue...maybe a terrorist will walk up and hug them before igniting a C4 jacket...

Libertarians, or even the broader Right, need a Facebook of our own. Right now there's this forum and Infowars, and neither includes nearly as many of the public as FB.

Similarly, our side could really use a Twitter substitute.

I have not found this to be true. I routinely share posts from Freedom Munitions. and USCCA among others.

Well said.

Rumor has it that the CIA funded Facebook's creation. Why should it act against their statist interests?
The terms of use probably allow Facebook to do what ever they want with anything posted. That's a legal contract consented to voluntarily. They shouldn't complain.

Facebook is a private business, a corporation. If one believes in Individual Rights, then one must believe that facebook has the right to suppress anything it wants. If one doesn't accept that, then they must believe that it's OK for the gov't to force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings. You can't have it both ways.

Most products have a commercial life of about 35 years. The digital products should be much less. Something better than Facebook will come along.

Well, Facebook is a private business. No one has any right to it. So what they do is not for any participant to decide, other than to use or not to use.

If it's true, they had better be damned careful. They have a near monopoly, in the positive Peter Thiel sense of the word. It will eventually go away. It will go away faster if they get caught doing this stuff. It won't be a boycott. People will just click elsewhere.