Yes, it would not make sense for the GP to consider that statement, since it was just made up for political purposes.
There is no evidence of it being true, and some circumstantial evidence of it not being true: namely, that FB was willing to block news from their site, and there was no obvious impact to e.g. their financials.
That "FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create". Sorry, I thought this was obvious from context, since it is what you accused the GP of not considering.
First, you're the one making an affirmative statement about what FB should be doing. The burden of proof is on you.
Second, I've posted the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence in direct reply to you multiple times. You've not engaged with it in any way, but just repeated your talking point.
You don't appear to be acting in good faith in this discussion. Your need to put some effort into this, and actually reply to what people write.
There is no evidence of it being true, and some circumstantial evidence of it not being true: namely, that FB was willing to block news from their site, and there was no obvious impact to e.g. their financials.