It does come off that way at the start, but I felt that about 1/3 of the way through, the undertone shifts in a way that presumes censorship is desirable. I th

It does come off that way at the start, but I felt that about 1/3 of the way through, the undertone shifts in a way that presumes censorship is desirable. I think if the author were calling for censorship to be lifted, his first and loudest argument would be for it to be removed from existing networks. But his ultimate judgment is that the existing networks are bad because they can't properly apply censorship, and that the answer is smaller networks. What criteria would a large, abstract social network be broken up by? The only answer is content, meaning ideas would be relegated to certain spaces so that they cannot propagate as easily. That's an argument for censorship while trying to sell it as something else.