A palpable frisson of exultation and a sense of impending victory could be felt among those to the left of the political spectrum on Facebook last week when the social media titan, in all of Mark Zuckerberg's wisdom at the grand old age of 34, decided to ban certain accounts deemed as "dangerous".
At first glance, Facebook appeared to be doing the right thing. So who was banned? The weird, loud-mouthed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the vicious anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the flamboyant right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, the outspoken but foul-mouthed YouTube personality Paul Joseph Watson, and Laura Loomer, an alt-right activist who campaigns against Islamic extremism.
They're a motley crew, a real odd bunch. But Mr Jones and Mr Farrakhan have been around spouting their vitriol before Facebook was even established.
Why ban them now?
Few have ever taken them seriously, and for those proven to have even listened to their rantings, eventually attacking or murdering others, might they not have perpetrated the same horrors anyway? Who really knows what drives the minds of such killers?
In a statement, Facebook said: "We've always banned individuals or organisations that promote and engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology."
But is this claim true?
Although the official Facebook pages of terror groups listed in the US such as Hamas and Hezbollah have been taken down, they stay ahead of the game, encouraging their followers to publish content promoting their messages of hate and murder.
And how many Facebook "censoring" staff can actually speak Arabic, or indeed any language besides English?
Facebook's move also raises troubling questions about its ability to enforce its ban. How many new employees will Mr Zuckerberg devote to eliminating all "dangerous" accounts? Will he boost their numbers exponentially?
For a profit-driven enterprise like Facebook, a huge staff increase seems extremely unlikely.
More alarmingly, though, free speech is looking increasingly in peril amid what appears to be sweeping censorship not only by Facebook, but by other popular social media platforms such as Twitter and YouTube. Who's next to be banned? The Bangkok Post for getting on the wrong side of Facebook?
Then comes the danger of the publicity surrounding such bans ending up generating more support for such "controversial" personalities. In several high-profile cases, those not holding "politically correct" opinions have actually gained many times more followers on other platforms such as Gab after being booted off Facebook or Twitter than if they had simply been ignored.
The fundamental question that Facebook must answer is whether it is just a neutral tech platform, as the company claims to be in public, or an actual publisher, as it has suggested rather confusingly in certain court cases. In the US, publishers which make editorial decisions, as Facebook has been doing by banning individuals and sites, should be subject to the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech, with the key exceptions including incitement or actual threats to harm others.
What also needs answering is whether there is any bias at Facebook HQ or in Silicon Valley in general against conservatives since it's not just "the crazies" being banned. A 2018 Pew poll found that 72% of Americans believe the tech giants censor material they don't agree with, with respondents reporting their view that such firms favour liberals against conservatives by a factor of four times. Far-left hate speech purveyors, meanwhile, such as anti-white people Sarah Jeong along with the notoriously violent Antifa remain free to roam the social media universe.
Certainly what is the most terrifying prospect of all to this newspaper, which almost no one seems to have mentioned, is that political trends can change like the wind -- next week, next year or in 10 or 20 years. While liberals appear to be winning the "culture war" right now, when the next generation "inherits the farm", perhaps tiring of the political stance of their parents, or new CEOs take over, a complete reversal of tack is very possible.
The next batch of "Masters of the Universe" might turn out to be far-right fanatics with similar or even greater authority to censor than their overly powerful predecessors -- those who set the perilous precedent of doing so with some people's views they oppose so vehemently now. Facebook and others are playing a very dangerous game because the fight against hate speech, admirable as the intentions might be, could easily end up becoming a nightmare with no free speech at all.