> people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse Caution: Admitting ignorance on the topic and then

> people not distinguishing between objective and subjective matters like you will cause the US to collapse Caution: Admitting ignorance on the topic and then levying an accusation that failure to discern is responsible for nation-state collapse seems like a large leap that one might want to avoid. As to the rest: Most of the bans I've seen have been based around what I'll call controversial opinions, which I won't bother expounding on but some examples include references to Caitlyn Jenner's Olympic achievements, or whether they are biologically male or female. Beyond that, I've seen a large number of bannings from those who questioned official government narratives: * COVID vaccines have affect menstrual cycles * COVID likely originated in Wuhan etc. These all seem to fall under the concept of 'opinion' and at least to the bulleted items, both of those opinions seem to have consensus support now, despite that they might have gotten you deplatformed just a year ago. There has to be room for civil discourse to question official narratives (for the citizenry and elected representatives alike) and for elected representatives, it seems that "I think the narrative is incorrect and so I should resign to give voice to it" then leaves the politician ineffective at countering what may well be a disaster, and leaves open the possibility of a heckler's veto of sorts wherein the executive could merely inject insincere poison pills into the official narrative and then wait for their ideological opponents to resign in objection.