I disagree. The notion of inserting the state as the primary social intermediary in our society scares the living daylights out of me. I do agree with your th

I disagree. The notion of inserting the state as the primary social intermediary in our society scares the living daylights out of me. I do agree with your thesis that we need social platforms immune to arbitrary censorship, however. I think the solution is some sort of trustless P2P system, where no one entity exercises ultimate control, and censorship is impossible, or at least very difficult. Of course that means that the platform won't be beholden to any nation's laws, irrespective of whether those laws are, in my opinion, just (criminalizing distribution of child pornography, for example) or not (criminalizing open political dissent, for example). However, if I have to choose between absolute free speech and government- or megacorp-controlled, surveilled, and mediated social interaction, I choose absolute free speech.