>These people are more than free to express themselves in any public platform or their own platform. I don't take this position seriously anymore, because I've

>These people are more than free to express themselves in any public platform or their own platform. I don't take this position seriously anymore, because I've seen time and time again that people who espouse it immediately flip 180 degrees when some large platform starts censoring content they want to post or see. The opposite is also true. Some people who speak against censorship flip 180 degrees when they don't like some content. (Though a bit less often, it seems.) My conclusion: before saying anything of this sort, you have to be able to present a clear general rule (that other people can apply without asking you) that distinguishes between cases of censorship you're okay with from other cases. That's the only way such conversation can start in a rational manner. Realistically, very few people truly believe that big companies should be home free to delete anything they want, solely their own discretion (including content from human right activists, opposition parties, corporate whistle-blowers, scientists and critics of the platform in question).