Disagreement is awesome. We need more disagreement, carried out in reliably truth-telling public forums (which do not alter the ratio of up/down votes and rela

Disagreement is awesome. We need more disagreement, carried out in reliably truth-telling public forums (which do not alter the ratio of up/down votes and related algorithms). If a platform wants to only host legal speech complying with its own views (and filter everything else it deems "bad"), then it's a news paper, not a forum. It has editorial responsibilities (and legal penalties and remedies), if so. Governments using "private" businesses to distort public debate has a long and horrific history (see every major mass-death totalitarian regime; Mao, Hitler, Stalin, ...). So, I am very worried about all media agreeing in lock-step with government! (eg. All global government, media, education, judicial and medical authorities in total agreement with global mass deployment of experimental medical treatments, for example, and sinking/de-platforming all dissent...) I will lay down my life to ensure you have the right to publicly display your opinion -- especially if I find it ridiculous, or even repulsive. Unfortunately, I suspect you might not agree with likewise protecting mine. And that is very unfortunate, and (I believe), ultimately self-destructive. Look at this debate. We're debating. HN is one of the few platforms where this is even possible anymore -- and only because it's sort of back-water and nerdy. Nobody, essentially, reads it (among the world of "normals"). And if they did, it would probably fall to a combination of "Endless September" and political pressure.