[Maru]

1) It's not FB's job to police the rest of the world. The other way to look at this, without FB, they would've just gone through other methods in order to find a "buyer"... it was just the most convenient way available. Only takes minutes for someone to respond and so the damage was probably already done well before the fact (it was reported).

2) It's arguably against our own interests as well to use Western-based platforms in this way to "clean up" the mess in other countries. It's bad enough the US has a large footprint militarily. We already see blowback for our tendency to proselytize others on our idealogy.

3) It might be in our interest to make it easier through channels such as FB to report a crime in that locale. That's probably better. These social media companies are not regulated and are in a uniquely vulnerable position in terms of being used for abusive purposes. Moreover, Russia, China, anyone really could simply create a "free speech" platform tomorrow since there is blowback with their censorship/clean up efforts. It would be really easy. Just attract all the right-wing/outraged mob folk to that new plat and evade detection. The right has been begging for an alternative for a while. Then it's very easy use those "interests" against our own culture. That is essentially what happened on FB/Twitter really, but they responded with censorship. This didn't really stop anything, it just probably drove those voices/interests underground. Though I'm not saying I'm against using platforms to share the virtues of Western ideals, but I can see it being anti-thetical to the "change" we hope to inspire world-wide... if foreign powers or even just interest groups (like terrorist organizations) ceize on the corruption in the US.

3) It is logistically impossible for sites the size of FB to self-manage and monitor all activities anyway. They can reduce, but not eliminate. It's much quicker to put up a post than it is to tag and remove. Any policy is impossible to apply inconsistently because of the haphazard nature of how certain problems spread. FB will always be used for illegal/heinous activities. It's the "public square" of the internet.

4) The 90's chatrooms of yore were mainly closed because of illegal activities such as the OP. Sex trafficking, child predators, foreign scammers, etc. Social media are not likely to suffer the same fate because it's actually profitable. So the only way to really separate the money from public interest is to regulate them as a utility. There's no easy way to go about quelling crime without removing the veil of anonymity. Probably.