I'm opposed to a company profiting off promoting potentially harmful speech (the more divisive & outrageous it is the more "engagement" it generates) which often leads to real-world violence.
While not directly applicable here (the article mentions QAnon policies but I'm not sure how close that particular group was to the ideology), in general I also believe calling QAnon "political speech" is a bit of a stretch. "Insanity" is what it should be called and should be dealt with by pointing them to counselling & mental health support services, not giving them a platform to publish their stupidity and grow an audience. That clearly isn't happening as Facebook is happy to profit off all these crazies and give them a safe space to communicate - the groups will only get shut down when and if the negative PR impact outweighs the profits.
While not directly applicable here (the article mentions QAnon policies but I'm not sure how close that particular group was to the ideology), in general I also believe calling QAnon "political speech" is a bit of a stretch. "Insanity" is what it should be called and should be dealt with by pointing them to counselling & mental health support services, not giving them a platform to publish their stupidity and grow an audience. That clearly isn't happening as Facebook is happy to profit off all these crazies and give them a safe space to communicate - the groups will only get shut down when and if the negative PR impact outweighs the profits.