Except everyone recognizes that their suppression of speech was a major contributor to their dominance. I dont understand how this is difficult to follow. Oppos

Except everyone recognizes that their suppression of speech was a major contributor to their dominance. I dont understand how this is difficult to follow. Opposition speech is the basic cornerstone of freedom of speech. Those in power cannot retaliate against you if you criticize their actions on whatever grounds whether its scientific, moral or economic. If you're in power and say "we need to kill off all stamp collectors to create a better society" then kill/torture/imprison anyone who in turn disagrees with you. Yes, you dont neccesarily get govs that kill off folks in non-free speech societies. The average person also doesn't murder either, we still make it illegal to kill others. You put in place these kinds of laws to create a deterrent or blockade against a ruling body from easily crushing opposition. How in the hell this is difficult to comprehend only means your history knowledge comes from pop culture articles instead of unbiased books. Democratic and republic forms of government are built on concepts to limit total government power and to place checks and balances on those in power. While we can argue the hows to do so, which are typically productive when the initial common ground is accepted, the general consensus after you know history from at least the Magna Carta days shows that those in power need limits. Freedom of speech is one of those mechanisms to limit those in power in a relatively fair way because it is a two way street. You cant shush the opposition, you cant shush those in power. The idea is the people, after hearing both sides, can make a generally good decision. Thats a whole other bag or worms. Anyways, social media has been a huge problem in becoming more one sided in many, many debates. But social media and Facebook are not freedom of speech. The ideal that the silicon valley crowd are a higher form of "for the people, by the people" has been another problem to this mess. They're rich fucks that alter "freedom of speech" by letting certain folks talk and then shushing the other side by burying their argument or just kicking them off. That's a one way street. Free speech is a two way street. They're saying they're agendaless but allow certain ideals to flourish and choke out the others. This ends up having backfiring effect due to creating a giant echo chamber then having the other groups go into their own echo chambers. They're all amplifying to stupid degrees instead of everyone being on the same forum to have a discussion. The social media companies are just that, companies. Zuckerberg and the other cunts are just in it for the money, not for social good. Since their business model was built on a house of cards chock full of debt and investment, they're tied to take large sums of money from whoever's willing to offer it.