The alternative is to allow free and open communication that is unmediated, unannotated, and unmoderated by any authority, and to allow information consumers to decide what they should and should not read and believe themselves.
It's the difference between the web and a walled garden.
I get that FB is interested in mediating, annotating, and moderating content, since they are a walled garden.
That's why I choose not to use FB, which is my right as a web user.
Since you're not a Facebook user, why do you care?
They have the right to do whatever they damn well please on their website. This isn't breaking the "open internet." Nothing about the design of the internet allows you to dictate how people run their websites.
That's a pipedream. There will always be human interference, whether it be direct, or a consequence of some humans' decisions regarding algorithm design.
As it is, Facebook's current (pre-fact-checking) algorithm prioritizes shallow engagement over other metrics. That leads to sensationalist clickbait receiving preferential treatment. Human decisions led to this outcome.
I am all for free and open communication as long as it is unrestricted in all respects.
But facebook has been filtering content to show you what they think is relevant. In such a scenario, I'd prefer if they added moderation to weed out fake news or at the very least mark it as such.
It's the difference between the web and a walled garden.
I get that FB is interested in mediating, annotating, and moderating content, since they are a walled garden.
That's why I choose not to use FB, which is my right as a web user.