Here's what's happening: our communication is moving to private venues. These venues initially maintain freedom of speech. Once they become effective monopolies

Here's what's happening: our communication is moving to private venues. These venues initially maintain freedom of speech. Once they become effective monopolies, they start arbitrarily cracking down on speech they dislike. The vast majority of people are on these monopolistic platforms. Yes, dissenters can still publish on some obscure platforms that nobody is consuming. If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it. > It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. So convenient that you can know everything about The Post without apparently reading it at all. Also, seems we no longer need to bother looking at facts or evidence. If a news story is vaguely associated with someone we dislike, we can just declare it wrongthink and dismiss it completely without further discussion. In fact, you strongly advocate that it should be blocked from being published at all. If a piece of information is associated with a group or person we dislike for any reason, we should consign it to the memory hole. We shouldn't let people make up their own mind, we should make it for them.