Let's make it concrete. She proposes a ministry for regulating tech which means there will be a permanent line between Washington and large social media compan

Let's make it concrete. She proposes a ministry for regulating tech which means there will be a permanent line between Washington and large social media companies. This is a horrible approach by any objective meassure and it would obviously also institutionalize Facebook (see "An array of possible next steps"[1]). This indicate that I am right this is not an attempt at weakening Facebook and social media in general, but an attempt to commandeer its power to censor. Since she is proposing a political body with the power to censor all social media, why is evidence of her political motivations and potential political connections to the whistleblowing a strawman? > In closing, I get that you and others are frustrated that certain types of posted content are targeted for removal. However, that in and of itself does not mean meaningful and opposed discourse can't occur or that anyone has a "right" to post wherever they like, saying whatever they want. New discoveries are in the margins, and is indistinguishable from nonsense. A lack of certainty and a certain amount of curiosity is needed to go through the process of distinguishing the two, which is why tyrannical regimes do not innovate well. Why are you so certain that you are right and is capable of knowing when dissenters are wrong? Whom do you think is capable of distinguish truth from falsity in the margins, and censor with absolute power without falling for the temptation to misuse it? > It is that it (your comments) may not occur without significant work involved that we all care about. Cheap and easy discourse isn't good for anyone, harms society, and will continue to be exploited until we come up with a technical solution to solve it. This accusation of dissenters not doing the work, while those in tech that censor do, is not supported by evidence. Censorship by tech has in the last year been wrong on major important points, e.g: - Not long ago the lab leak hypothesis was censored, delaying potential life saving measures - Not long ago Hunters laptop was called fake and censored, affecting democratic primary outcome and election outcomes - Not long ago early treatment solutions to covid was censored, delaying deployment of early treatment solutions similar to the one Merck just released [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2021/oct/05/facebook-hearing-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testifies-us-senate-latest-news?page=with:block-615c928a8f08e3ec64c3a16d https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2021/oct/05/face... [2] https://fortune.com/2021/10/05/everything-to-know-about-mercks-covid-antiviral-pill/ https://fortune.com/2021/10/05/everything-to-know-about-merc...