Except speech that illicits violence is already considered illegal in most free speech societies. More censorship would not have stopped those kinds of atrociti

Except speech that illicits violence is already considered illegal in most free speech societies. More censorship would not have stopped those kinds of atrocities. Human beings just generally suck. The interesting argument isn't really about the mechanism of free speech anymore, it's the scale. Anyone can have a global platform without any real effort these days. Most of the famous internet people would never have been a blip 20 or 30 years ago. There is something to say about the need for some sort of gatekeeping, but theres also more arguments that counter the benefits. The problem with Facebook, Twitter and the rest of their ilk is the fact they benefit from radicalism of some sort. Take a step away from politics. Who are the popular folks on social media for any subject? The people who are really into whatever it is. They're fanatical about their craft or topic. They then try to show how great it is as to have others appreciate it, do it themselves or fund that influencer's endeavors. Radicalizing the audience. When it comes to ant farms, drone racing, game dev, game plays, growing hot peppers, the dangers only go so far in radicalizing an audience. Apply the same thing to politics and you get psychopaths. Why? I'm not smart enough right now to answer that, but I recognize that social media requires it. That's how they get the views, the ad sales and that sweet sweet user data. They won't give it up, no matter what rhetoric they pull out of their ass and throw in our face. The worst part, they'll agree to censorship, but to their own flavor. Current free speech generally requires you dont talk about hurting or killing someone or directly lie about something specific (libel, slander). Current media platforms, both traditional and social, believe those rules only apply when their group is the victim. When it's those "others", it's okay to be a complete dick and break the law. This goes for all political parties, they're all equally assholes. Free speech laws are meant to affect everyone evenly (naive, I know) when it comes to the gov intervening. Sadly, it's technically true that private corps dont have to play by the same rules. But when the corporation can influence the gov, where is that line drawn? On top, corps influencing gov, where is that line drawn too? This whole thing is a mess. We should go back to being hunter gatherers and fight bears for blueberries.