I believe that we passed a controversial discourse, when a certain group of people decided to ignore all reasonable arguments, to ignore sience.

This is not about shutting down all controversial discourse. It is about "defend[ing] a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant". Surpression shall only happen if there is no other way to defend a tolerant society cause the intolerant are working with (massiv, wide spread) violence.

I don't know who is in the position to decide when that point has come. But one could argue that people invading the capitol is that point.(I don't think so)

What I am really worried about, is that it seems like tech companies will have to make those decisions. In the end there will be individual persons, who make that decisons and that is very dangerous.

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide?

Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

As I already wrote: That's exactly what I am worried about. I do believe that tech-companies are not the right instance to make those decisions.

But: There is noone else, who is able to control the growing beast of social networks that they created. And in parts they can not control it either. There are too many languages used, that no employee or AI understands.

In the end we are darned to watch and hope they make the correct decisions.

> Do you let google and facebook decide?

Google and Facebook should host whichever legal content they'd like, and we should build alternative systems that give us control over how we spend our attention and share our influence.

Worth pointing out that innocent people were shot and killed and senators were evacuated while they confirmed the election result. It isn't "something I don't like" it is "something reprehensible which cannot under any circumstances be tolerated".