[disown]

> And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"

Also, really puts a dent into the anti-free speech argument that "you can go to another platform" argument.

I do love watching all these "tech/social media is evil" crowd here suddenly praising tech/social media and wanting them to have even more control over our lives.

Social media is so evil that we need them to control our lives even more. Wonderful logic that.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying.

I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives. I would like them to have less, which presumably happens either because (a) we stop using social media (at least in the current sense) and/or (b) more options for "social media" platforms emerge.

Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.

I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech. Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version? How about my comments on their articles?

[disown]

> That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying.

Actually I described you to the tee.

> I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives

So you are against censorship or for it?

> Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.

Except that if tech companies collude together to prevent that. Fine, you say go make your own twitter. They do and then it gets banned from google play/apple store/etc. And down the line it goes. That's my point.

> I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech.

Who or what are you quoting? You just plucked a quote out of the ether. That's very dishonest and disingenuous. You almost write like a journalist.

> Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version?

Of course not. But then again, they are not a platform, they are publishers. But you already knew that.