I used to think that way until I learned about the illusory truth effect, which basically states that being exposed to information multiple times makes you more likely to believe it to be true. The consequence of this is that attempting to curate information might "infect" you with ideas that you never wanted in your brain in the first place.

If you started in the wrong way," I said in answer to the investigator's questions, "everything that happened would be a proof of the conspiracy against you. It would all be self−validating. You couldn't draw a breath without knowing it was part of the plot." "So you think you know where madness lies?" My answer was a convinced and heartfelt, "Yes." "And you couldn't control it?" "No I couldn't control it. If one began with fear and hate as the major premise, one would have to go on the conclusion." "Would you be able," my wife asked, " to fix your attention on what The Tibetan Book of the Dead calls the Clear Light?" I was doubtful. "Would it keep the evil away, if you could hold it? Or would you not be able to hold it?" I considered the question for some time. "Perhaps," I answered at last, "perhaps I could − but only if there were somebody there to tell me about the Clear Light. One couldn't do it by oneself. That's the point, I suppose, of the Tibetan ritual − somebody sitting there all the time and telling you what's what." [Doors of Perception, 57−58]

The problem that you mention was largely amplified by Big Tech, the same companies who are now offering their "solutions".

I agree the problem is two-fold: One being the Big Tech overreaching in the name of "our safety". The other being the overly vocal minority who clap hands for them and come up with excuses defending them, as if they were propagandists.

This is fear speaking, stand up for free speech that isn't inciting violence, racism, etc - like everyone else - and we'll all be safe, and we can all fight against tyranny when it shows itself. There's a nuance to understand as well that these people deplatformed aren't victims: they still have their freedom of speech, just not on these private platforms. It's inconvenient for them, yes, that they depended on them, but their TOS were always clear from the beginning if they actually read or cared about their contents. This scenario isn't akin to the Nazis going after one group, then another, then another - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... - violence isn't a group even if a mob forms a group, and understandably they're an angry mob who believe to some degree that the election was fraudulent (but hypocritically it wouldn't have been fraudulent if their pick one) - which all signs point to that it wasn't - but because they're not accessible to talk to and their media channels are perpetuating the lies and lack of critical thinking, it's manifesting how expected, and why Trump et al have been inciting violence. January 6th could have ended with many more dead, could have been much more tragic had they been better organized.

If your child started saying racist things, would you just let them? I assume not. I assume you would escalate punishment until they understood and behaved with what's appropriate, and if they didn't, you'd probably kick them out of your house once you're legally allowed to if for some reason they've become a terrible person; people won't change until they're ready to or there's an impetus - sometimes, if not most of the time, all it takes is a parent saying you won't get dessert if you don't behave.

Sounds like you're fundamentally opposed to free speech. Maybe we can coin a new term something like "non-dangerous speech" or "mostly free speech". I'm glad we'll get Apple and Amazon to figure out what dangerous is too.

Not at all. Free speech but with consequences. And there is free speech in America and free speech on the internet in America - however the moment you're on private property of a technology company's property (website or app or other) - it's their rules you follow.

People easily, and they are doing it, post to thedonald.win to say whatever the fuck they want there because the moderators are allowing it. So I don't accept your premise that these people playing victim role, behaving as if they're being persecuted and claiming they're blocked from free speech - because they're not.

I presume you don't just let anyone into your house whenever they want to, and to say whatever they want anytime?

I don't know where you got the impression that private property means the first amendment no longer applies. The Supreme Court has been very clear if a person or company opens up there property sufficiently they no longer get to ignore it.

> ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

We are a very very small jump from this being applied to social media.

You're grasping at straws here. Are you genuinely trying to compare a private corporation to the sidewalk of a city/town? Cities/towns are registered private entities for organizational purposes, however in good faith and spirit they are owned indirectly by the citizens of that place. Private corporations like Google, Apple, are not the same - and to think a ruling from the 40s applies is interesting. Another point is you must become a registered user, which arguably removes you from the group of general public.

Besides that a ruling doesn't mean it's in the correct direction. Slavery used to be legal and abortion - a woman having choice - is trying to be made illegal again - as two examples. The general public distributing religious flyers on a sidewalk freely open to the public sounds like a reasonable ruling, that wouldn't allow a person to do the same thing say at a gated community though where the public is generally allowed access to - which could be considered akin to requiring users are registered.

free speech does not mean free of consequences.

one consequence of objectionable speech is that anyone who gave you a platform rescinds it.

that's what happened here, nothing more nothing less.

I am a zealous advocate for the first amendment, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let a random person advocate violence (or exercise speech which actually led to violence) on my platform.