As a private enterprise, Facebook is entitled to decide which content it publishes.
But there is irony in a social network recently campaigning against misinformation, in areas from Covid-19 vaccinations to election results, suddenly leaving its users with zero news - at least from reliable services which are held to account by industry regulatory bodies and libel laws.
Facebook says news accounts for only 4 per cent of its traffic, but that 4 per cent gives the social network a core of credibility.
Australians who want news can, of course, still go to the source. But several pundits said this could lessen the amount of voices, with smaller news sites lacking the "portal effect" of larger news organisations, which enjoy millions of hits per day with or without Facebook.
AUT senior media lecturer Merja Myllylahti declared, "Unfortunately, Facebook has shown again that is not for democracy. It is anti-democratic."
The swift attempt to remove Australian news from Facebook, and prevent its sharing or posting by anyone anywhere in the world, also - once again - exposed the limitations of the social network's agility.
As with attempts to stamp out misinformation, harmful content or conspiracy theories, results were haphazard.
The social network inadvertently removed the Australian Bureau of Meteorology page amid floods in Queensland and fires in Western Australia. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services WA was also blocked. Victoria Police had posts removed from its Facebook page.
Attempts by various groups to share information about Covid-19 clusters, or Australia's soon-to-begin vaccination programme, were blocked.
Retailer Harvey Norman had posts blanked on its page and the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions was furious after its Facebook page was blocked.
Several hours into the ban, a Facebook Australia-New Zealand spokeswoman told the Herald the ban was not supposed to impact government sites and the network would "reverse any pages that are inadvertently impacted".
She added, "As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted. However, we will reverse any pages that are inadvertently impacted."
Asked if a people panel or bots were responsible for the cull, the spokeswoman said a "combination of technologies" was being used to implement the ban.
If Facebook is to continue its news ban, then it will have to lift its game considerably. It is, however, a moot point whether it will persist.
Last month, Google took a similarly tough line, removing mainstream news organisation links from search results, then threatening to pull out of Australia altogether.
But over the past few days, Google has relented, reaching deals with major media organisations, including News Corp, Nine Entertainment and Seven Media as it spends an estimated A$100m on pay-for-news deals.
The money could be spread relatively thin if Google reaches deals with all of the 122 or so media organisations reportedly in the negotiations. But, given the search giant drew some A$4.8 billion in ad revenue from the Australian market last year, it makes sense from its side.
At the end of the day, Facebook might find it cheaper and easier to play ball, too.
