> "I don't think that's the question" It is, though. The parent asked, "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?" I am respondi

> "I don't think that's the question" It is, though. The parent asked, "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?" I am responding to that question, so yes, that is the question. > "And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it?" Must there be gulags involved for free speech to be suppressed? And yes, it did hinder discussion of the lab leak theory. Dozens of news outlets suppressed this theory, even mislabeling it as a conspiracy theory and ostracizing those who held it. > "They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true" Wow, either there is a serious miscommunication here or you are deliberately misreading my post. I don't want government or social media companies to be the arbiters of what's true. I don't want the current or future administration mislabeling critiques of the government as "hateful" or "misinformation". Nor do I want Zuck, Pichai, or any other tech company suppressing speech because it is unpopular, hateful, or misinformation. We cannot entrust government or corporations with guarding our rights to free speech.