Didn't I make it clear it's not my line? Historical precedent. There's also plenty of precedent for restricting commercial speech and activity: zoning laws.

Didn't I make it clear it's not my line? Historical precedent. There's also plenty of precedent for restricting commercial speech and activity: zoning laws. Incorrect statements about the world (unless they're directed at people and companies, then there's slander and libel law), have never been the subject of legal restrictions that I'm aware of. Social, yes, legal, no. You can stand on a street corner with a sign protesting science and demanding recognition of flat earth theory. However, try that with a sign depicting gore or porn. Depending on your location, authorities would probably use some generic statute like disturbing the peace or some "harmful to minors" statute. I'd be shocked if any action were taken against anyone advocating Flat Earth Theory. Religious fanatics regularly do much worse protesting abortion clinics. The issue shows up when certain content is being broadcast in the public square. I think all of these things, from covid misinformation to sex and violence, are so prevalent on the internet that blocking it on the major social media sites is futile. I think it should be handled with a tag system, without blocking or deranking anything other than allowing people to choose which specially tagged content shows up in their feeds. But as long as they don't have those kinds of tagging systems (twitter allows users to flag their own accounts as 18+, but nothing else and nothing more granular except on their administrative backend), they can hide behind the excuse that their algorithms put arbitrary content into other people's feeds, and therefore the content that has historical precedent for community restrictions (obscene, disruptive, or harmful to minors) can plausibly be restricted on their platforms too.