​This wasn’t torture porn: According to the Guardian, the video went viral as part of an awareness-raising campaign by a Mexican group protesting against drug cartels. Decapitations are a frequent form of cartel violence.

Since the beheading video, there’s new focus on what measures, if any, Facebook should take to restrict this kind of content. There are, at least, discussions about introducing age-restriction warnings.

I doubt we’re witnessing Facebook’s final position on this. Right now, they’re attempting to split the difference between content that celebrates and content that condemns violence—a muddy standard at best.

But the implications of Facebook’s decision are more significant than they may appear at first glance. American Internet companies are arguably the greatest exporters of free speech in the world. If you can’t say something in America, it’s fairly likely you can’t say it anywhere else in the world (except, perhaps, if you’re a whistleblower). But thanks to the Internet, if you can say it in America, it’s almost as if you are saying it in every other country, too.

The Internet giants know this, and its made their content policies surprisingly important over time. Yahoo has been losing battles against French laws prohibiting the sale of Nazi merchandise for years. Google made a special exception and banned Innocence of Muslims after it inspired riots across the Middle East that resulted in many people dying.

A YouTube spokesperson elaborated on the problem with Innocents of Muslims, a movie that mocks the Prophet Mohammed: “This video -- which is widely available on the Web -- is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.”

But such lack of clear principals is anathema to Silicon Valley. Case-by-case consideration, to which Facebook seems to have momentarily resigned itself, requires human input. An algorithm can’t—at least not yet—differentiate between celebration and condemnation. Not only is this bad for the bottom line, it also means less transparency, one of the virtues companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter say they hold themselves to.

This is all amplified outside of America. Facebook is struggling with how to fit into Western ideals. To put a European twist on it: how would you feel if Facebook allowed videos of hardcore pornography, but not a beheading or other serious violence? Or neither? Or both? Questions over the curious gap between between Americans’ acceptance of violence, even for children, and Americans’ acceptance of porn have even been considered by the Supreme Court.

​Facebook’s current problem also embodies this. The company bans photos and videos that “glorify violence”—as well as a woman’s fully exposed breast.

None of this is to say that the bottom lines of these companies are in danger. But then again, there are definite economic concerns. Google’s cooperation (or lack thereof) has created problems for them in China, where one contender, Baidu, has flourished. TOM-Skype, which now feels like a courtesy call from the future, was Microsoft’s love letter to Chinese censorship, written in order to expand into that market.

One considerations get even cloudier with one more question, which should be asked in evaluating the decisions of free-speech exporters: Are the Chinese people better off with a censored Skype than without any Skype at all?

I’m not sure. And I’m glad I didn’t have to decide.

Still, we should all be aware of these things when we make demands of companies like Facebook. Satisfying our sometimes whacky cultural norms has implications for free speech around the world. Facebook’s decision here could hurt a lot of people—not only the families of the victims and the protesters with a story to tell.

* Google recently paid me to do some work for a non-profit.