> So the real question in the article boils down to a moral dilema: Should a government ban ideologies which it considers could lead to detrimental outcomes for

> So the real question in the article boils down to a moral dilema: Should a government ban ideologies which it considers could lead to detrimental outcomes for society, when said ideologies do not directly cause physical damage on anyone or thing? I think the critical part of that question is how you define goverment. We need to recognize that social media is now a form of government. Every day Twitter, Facebook, and other arms of social make moderation decisions not based on imminent harm but ideology. They censor based on what is liable to cause offense within their worldview and what will reduce the amount of blowback. This moderation is largely silent. Social media is neither transparent nor a democracy.