Your position is clear: if responsible governments (lol) punish platforms for what commoners post on them, platforms wishing to survive will, sensibly, not allo

Your position is clear: if responsible governments (lol) punish platforms for what commoners post on them, platforms wishing to survive will, sensibly, not allow commoners to post. Moderation is not enough, as unapproved things will always make it through the cracks. The deep distrust of unmoderated, un-nannied communication is also apparent: >The "but it is only transportation of information, like telephones" >argument is just ridiculous. It is valid for email at best, >it is not valid for social media. They already routinely practice >filtering of what is posted. The at best you use to describe the freedom of communication in email shows that your position has no bottom: everything and anything the masses express, even in private communications, must be policed. You also do not understand that freedom of speech in the US is not moderated or regulated by the government, and is something enjoyed by the people, not just interest or power groups, which adds to the authoritarian vibe of your post.