Well, it's a matter of what's actually harmful speech. Like I'd agree if it was just hate speech that was getting removed (I agree that there's no equivalence b

Well, it's a matter of what's actually harmful speech. Like I'd agree if it was just hate speech that was getting removed (I agree that there's no equivalence between this and say, removing someone that's spamming the n-word). But that's not the case really. I know it's a dead horse but you had hashtags related to hunter Biden's laptop getting completely hidden, to the point where articles were blacklisted from getting shared. And I'm not even arguing about if the story is true or not, it's just that it objectively wasn't harmful speech in any sense of the word (it was harmful to Democrats but that's it), yet the precedent has been set, with very strong support from the side that's now crying about censorship. Again, this is just an example but that's why setting precedents is dangerous, especially when the tables turn. This isn't coming from a position of support for Trump, quite the opposite.