But do you admit that a handful of giant corporations controlling public debate is a problem? You just think one of the possible solutions is worse than the pro

But do you admit that a handful of giant corporations controlling public debate is a problem? You just think one of the possible solutions is worse than the problem itself? I should point out that the Westminster Declaration also attacks government censorship - presumably you agree with that part of it? As well as with the counter-speech interpretation of it - i.e. calling out companies that censor, exposing them to social, not legal, consequences? It's tiresome to see all the problems of government/corporate censorship ignored with "I don't want government forcing me/giant corporations to promote evil people", while ignoring the options of social resistance to this censorship (i.e. not just making alternative platforms, but criticizing and pressuring existing platforms (the pro-censorship side doesn't shy away from pressure campaigns). To compare it with labor rights, they weren't won with "just quit and go work at a factory that doesn't employ children".), and ignoring the instances where government itself is legislating censorship.