Yes, intriguing. Generally though, shouldn't this morphing of traditional publishing mechanisms, facilitated by FB, cause us to pause for further thought.

This Columbia Journalist Review opinion piece from April,

http://www.cjr.org/criticism/facebook_news_censorship.php

nicely conveys some valid concerns (and provides a intriguing crop of supporting links to boot).

Points of note:

• Two-tiered content sharing system; those who can, pay more to ensure better exposure
• FB's competition acquisitions and their potential for monopolising internet sharing
• FB's investment in lobbying
the difficulties an organisation faces when wielding excessive dominance and unbridled power

Nothing new here you may add, but I'm still struggling with the general apathy to these issues (and the others discussed) among the more digitally literate and cyber cultured. It's not a criticism as such, I'm just trying to define why that is.

I found this useful, thanks.
I guess to add to this is the fact that a Facebook users participation with the service, and their intellectual property creation on it, directly contributes to Facebook's revenue:

http://qz.com/335473/heres-how-much-money-you-made-for-facebook-last-year/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/29/facebook-quarterly-earnings-q4-2014_n_6568712.html

Doesn't this too make any comparisons of FB with public utilities problematic?

I appreciate, what I interpreted to be, the crux of Howard's point: that the public sphere has never existed in a vacuum, cut off from wider societal and economical influences, and that Facebook now resembles this sphere, for many many people as the default forum, for online discourse, in their daily life. However, something unsettles me about her acceptance of this fact and her subsequent discussion that almost came off as a defence of the Facebook platform in places.

I've heard similar, though simpler, arguments before, a "well I've invested so much time and content on Facebook, and built such a network, what am I supposed to do?!" premise. I wonder, is this not a little defeatist, cynical and, to a degree, myopic? Isn't this the same old consumer apathy so readily critiqued when exhibited in less lofty manifestations in society?

In my own, very suspect and fragile, idealism I kind of expected so much more from certain sections of society when it came to rejecting the all encompassing commercial behemoth that is FB, as the central conduit for all their intimate communications, relationships and, erm, life. I know of politically astute students, avant-garde musicians, writers, militant programmers, professional technologists, all seemingly united in their critiquing of corporate culture, and all bloody Facebook, seemingly shackled to it. However, to be fair, maybe this reality reflects shades of Howard's point too: the infrastructure we have forged for ourselves on the web is a reflection of the real world we inhabit, with all it's ideological contradictions, compromises, hypocrisy and nuances. It just seems so odd, conceding to contradiction and defeat through a compulsion so trivial as 'convenience'. If that is indeed what it is...