The part where you say "The solution is..." and then don't substantiate it, but instead focus on knocking down other solutions. That other solutions have problems does not make your one any better.

(At least in this comment you are providing a qualifier ("I think..."))

My solution is a lack of implementing any of the solutions, therefore that's the only focus there is. Freedom (by the 1A) instead of vague, complicated and heavy-handed policies that are currently causing an American company to side with an authoritarian regime.

I don't claim that the 1A has no problems, but it does have less problems and that's still an improvement, and it has worked for more than a century for this great nation.

What other evidence would you like to see?

> What other evidence would you like to see?

What do you mean by "other" evidence? You didn't provide any.

> but it does have less problems

Unsubstantiated claim.

> and it has worked for more than a century for this great nation

Unsubstantiated claim.

To respond in a manner similar to your other comments:

What does "worked" mean? How is it an improvement? How does it have fewer problems? Where exactly did it work in whatever great nation you're thinking of. Have you considered where it didn't work? What is the metric for "worked"?

American companies didn't side with authoritarian regimes before and wouldn't if they just followed 1A rule. People wouldn't be censored on platforms if they just followed the 1A rule.

The metric is personal freedom and how much you can do without the government or someone else preventing you from doing so. Anyone can say what they want and people can ignore and block, leading to more freedom for all.

This is an improvement. It was also what we had before. It worked everywhere in America. I don't know of any place where it didn't work and do note that many countries without freedom envy the American way.

> American companies didn't side with authoritarian regimes before

Please do a simple search before making incredibly wrong claims. There was one very famous case in the decade you refer to. And when you look at the history of American companies in general, you'll find more.

> The metric is personal freedom and how much you can do without the government or someone else preventing you from doing so.

> This is an improvement. It was also what we had before. It worked everywhere in America. I don't know of any place where it didn't work and do note that many countries without freedom envy the American way.

As others have pointed out to you, by that metric, the US failed considerably. It's not what we had before in practice. People have pointed out places where it didn't work.

> do note that many countries without freedom envy the American way.

And many Americans envy other countries for traits they have that the US lacks. What's the relevance?