> and this does 100% tie into the point that our online social spaces are not public spaces, and are not even internationally recognized spaces. They are owned

> and this does 100% tie into the point that our online social spaces are not public spaces, and are not even internationally recognized spaces. They are owned and operated by for-profit US corporations who have their own motives and will define "acceptable" in ways that do not align with civil society's views, that's for sure. I agree with you there, it's a complicated thing to fix that doesn't have much precedent, and there's no perfect solution in sight. I think Facebook and Twitter should now be treated like utilities like phones and electricity, meaning that they should be restricted in how much freedom they have since they gained so much power. Regardless, it doesn't make any sense to delegate these companies--who have been caught spying on users and doing crazy stuff--with deciding what we can say on the internet. In addition, even if the intentions are good a censoring tool will always be abused. The only possible solution is mirroring USA's free speech: if not calling for immediate violence, it's allowed.