I can't speak for others but I marked "unsure", not because I'm "willing to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth" but because Big Tech is that arbiter

I can't speak for others but I marked "unsure", not because I'm "willing to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth" but because Big Tech is that arbiter already. Everything from who gets a blue check mark to how the algorithm sorts your feed creates and feeds your concerns and beliefs. I honestly think this discussion "should they or shouldn't they ban x" is a poor framing of the discussion we should be having. It implies media companies can be unbiased. It implies there is some democracy implicit in social media. It implies that the right virtues can make social media work. I don't think any of those things are true and I don't think we should have a discussion that allows their presumption. What people are doing on Twitter isn't new. What Twitter is doing isn't new. What people on Parler are doing isn't new. What Parler is doing isn't new. People who believe it is new simply have an incorrect understanding of history. They underestimate the gross bias in media historically. They underestimate the volume and extremity of seditious communication and activity. They underestimate the violence and frequency of political unrest. If we want to have a real conversation about disassociating power and speech, disassociating money and speech, disassociating status quo and speech, I think that's a worthy conversation. The rest of this is red meat for slacktivist posters.