"The market", however, is not some magic entity than can fix things. The market is you, me and him and her. The market is people. If people would be talking abo

"The market", however, is not some magic entity than can fix things. The market is you, me and him and her. The market is people. If people would be talking about gab.ai as free-speech alternative to censorious Twitter, it would work as such. If people would insist that gab.ai is a neo-Nazi site where only violent psychopaths about to commit mass shooting are visiting, and should be banned everywhere, then "the market" would not fix any problems. The market is us, so if we want less censorship, we should be actively supporting platforms that have less censorship, and actively fighting platforms that have more of it. > If we're going to have censorship on the big platforms We're not "going" to have it. We already have it. Well, maybe not ISPs, but definitely "Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc." > It's not wrong for Twitter to have rules to protect the weak from the strong, and individuals from the mob When Gandhi was asked "what do you think about Western civilization", he reportedly said "I think it'd be a good idea". In the same vein, it might be a good idea (not sure, but maybe) for Twitter to have rules to protect individuals from the mob and weak from the strong, but whatever Twitter has now definitely does nothing of the sort. I am not sure if it is possible at all to have such rules, but even if it were, Twitter does not seem to be interested in the least.