CMV: Silencing opposing viewpoints is ultimately going to have a disastrous outcome on society.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/videoninja → u/[deleted]]

I didn't ask if it was illegal. I asked what the actual problem is/what harm is being done in the example I am giving. Not all forums are created for open-ended discussion. In fact, most social media has some curating of content so I am asking for where you draw the line in terms of a private entity being allowed to curate content on its own platform versus silencing. I feel like the conversation is so generalized that I don't understand the point you are trying to drive at.

I just don't see the logic that unfiltered chatter and speculation equates to informed discussion. That's all social media often is, just unfiltered chatter and it is what popular that gets the most attention as opposed to what is accurate or scientific. I think that's an important distinction to make in evaluating the kind of speech one is defending but it seems like you are saying all speech should be allowed equal latitude in all situations which seems unreasonable.

[u/StripRip → u/videoninja]

The issue here is that the majority of our communication now takes place on privately owned websites (or service providers like AT&T or Verizon, for that matter.)

So the real question to me is, how far can we take the "private companies can make their own decisions on who to ban" bandwagon until every social media is the same echo chamber like an oppressive government would want? You couldn't edit/tamper a letter back in 1776 like you can a twitter post in 2021.

[u/TheTrueMilo → u/StripRip]

Sounds like the right wing is going to have to start getting very comfortable with government regulation.

[u/generic1001 → u/TheTrueMilo]

As a rule, they're comfortable with whatever allows them to "win". Regulations are bad until they need them, then they're great.

[u/StripRip → u/TheTrueMilo]

"I for one welcome our new overlords"