I would be interested to see what some of the people that were quoted in that rebuttal would say now. Speech is dangerous, speech is a weapon, that's why it nee

I would be interested to see what some of the people that were quoted in that rebuttal would say now. Speech is dangerous, speech is a weapon, that's why it needs to be protected, because people want to have the weapon only for themselves. But the weapon of 1859 is a hatchet and the weapon of 2016 is a virus. > Is there an example of a platform like the one you describe with a large audience? I think the real platform is the Internet. Losing access to an advertising service is hardly denying platform access. I believe in net neutrality and believe that ISPs and IP providers should have common carrier status, and if someone wants to air an argument of prejudice and hate they can buy the IP connection and set up a web server. No-one is stopping them, but we're not amplifying fringe voices to the same volume as everyone else.