There seems to be a bit of a false dilemma presented in this article (which otherwise makes some very valid points). It's like it's saying "If a company doesn'

There seems to be a bit of a false dilemma presented in this article (which otherwise makes some very valid points). It's like it's saying "If a company doesn't ban anything, then the site becomes unusable, therefore a company should be able to ban whatever it wants". This is similar to the Politician's Syllogism.[0] To their credit, the author does suggest that there should be a free market in which different companies can experiment with different moderation policies. They even, correctly, suggest that what's needed is some sort of interoperable protocol to allow people to communicate between sites (which hopefully will be required by the EU's recent DMA proposals[1]). What's missing, though, is the possibility that a company could let users choose what filtering they want without having to abandon the platform and start somewhere new. So, for example, Twitter could by default ban conspiracy theories and misinformation, but if a user is an adult then they should be able to opt in to see that sort of content. That would respect the principle of free speech while still allowing the site to continue to look almost the same for almost all users. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician's_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician's_syllogism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#cite_ref-:02_3-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act#cite_ref-:...