> > My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that. >That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater th

> > My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that. >That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual. I completely disagree. The individual's right to speak is greater (at least in the US) than the government's right to shut them up. However, other individuals (or a group of individuals, such as a corporation like F-Droid) have the same right to speak, as well as the right to control the speech on their private property. There is an important distinction there. From a legal standpoint, the government are restricted from (except in very narrow circumstances) limiting an individual's speech. However, private actors have no such restrictions on their private property. a "community" of individuals can absolutely express their dislike/dissatisfaction with the speech of others by banning them from their private property. It's only the government that's restricted from doing so.