The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: A. entities conducting surveillance, such as data brokers. B. e

The only ones that seem to want and benefit most from a global filter-free "public square" are: A. entities conducting surveillance, such as data brokers. B. entities wanting to manufacture consent through campaigns consisting of content that is non-geniune or ragebaity. C. fatherless immature 13-year-olds (or actors at that maturity level) that still think Internet trolling is funny in 2024. D. entities that really want the Internet to behave like a one-way broadcast medium, like television. No one actually wants A, B, and C other than entities that are A, B, and C. A decent portion probably doesn't want D either. All of these have been increasing in scale on the Internet as time passes. I'm all for using a global public square, but I am not going to respect it or use it really unless there is way for me to avoid A, B, and C. The government shouldn't do this. It'd be nice if the platform could do this automatically as a feature, but it's not a solved problem yet. And that's OK - if the platform lets me manage what I see, I can solve it myself, which it's really a "me" problem anyway. It'd be nicer if the platform lets me and like-minded individuals subscribe to and manage blocklists, and if I think the blocklist manager is off their rocker, I can unsubscribe to it. And if the government required "public squares" on the Internet to have such a feature, that'd be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath. You can call this censorship if you want, but if it's initiated and chosen by me and not the government or other arrangements of authorities where you cannot opt out, then so what?