> Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices in life.
And also puts the biggest burden upon those in the minority, even if the majority thinks they shouldn't have that burden.
> No man or woman is fit to play the censor.
But apparently they can drive other men and women away. It's defacto censorship, just of another source.
> What harm? Mean words on the internet?
Yes. Pointing out (and sharing) where you live, perhaps some details about your kids, and discussing the tragic consequences of families that lose children is just one example of "mean words on the internet". And maybe, per the above, the govt shouldn't be able to do anything about that. But saying that we, as society, just need to get thick skinned about that and suck it up as individuals is naive as to whom we are empowering and whom we are harming. We have more options than just dealing with things as individuals.
I'm not likely to respond further - my goal was not to debate the topic, but to share that there are some nuanced views on the topic of companies practicing some level of limitations on the free speech of others - anything more is well past the penumbra of the article. You clearly disagree with my views, and you clearly aren't alone, but I feel I've expressed my view well enough.
It legally can not use that power for non-government entities, including those mirroring that content.
And you're suggesting it should be able to?
> Except that the toxic people drive the others away
And who gets to decide who is toxic? I've seen a user have a meltdown because someone compared democratic socialism to communism, and claimed everyone who disagreed with them was toxic. Should they get to be the judge?
> threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten.
Let's be clear - a threat in and of itself is _not_ illegal. A threat must be a direct, actionable call to violence to be illegal. Someone telling you they're going to make fun of you, post embaressing things or otherwise "threaten" you isn't illegal.
> Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone
Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices in life. No man or woman is fit to play the censor.
> they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people.
What harm? Mean words on the internet? That pales in comparison for a regulatory agency, say the NSC, to suppress true information, say about a major pandemic, by abusing it's powers of censorship.