>2. Free speech doesn't just matter in a legal context. Free speech is protected in the US constitution because it's important in a free society. If we're going

>2. Free speech doesn't just matter in a legal context. Free speech is protected in the US constitution because it's important in a free society. If we're going to let the discourse of our society move into privately-owned platforms like Reddit/Facebook/Twitter instead of publicly-owned platforms like street corners where newspapers are sold (or, the rest of the internet) then we have to value free speech on those platforms as well. I think this comparison makes little sense. Either you're comparing newspapers and social media platforms or you're comparing the street corner and the internet. The powers that be should not be censoring the street or the internet. But the owners of newspapers have always exercised some level of control over their content, just as social media platforms exercise varying levels of control over what is posted to them. I don't like it, but I didn't like newspaper control over newspaper content much either. Expressly ideological newspapers that are more like newsletters are one thing, but newspapers that purport to be objective and are not are quite another. I don't see echo chambers on reddit as being much different from the echo chamber that is the University [Insert Here] Society's newsletter. Echo chambers have always existed. People sometimes just want to surround themselves with opinions they agree with.