You keep making assumptions about me. You don't know me. I made no such statements about the first amendment.

However you justify censorship, it still has a cost. Legalistic arguments about the first amendment and who it restrains doesn't change the fact that the free exchange of ideas has value and that is being taken away from us. Note that I'm not specifying who is doing the censoring in any of my arguments. Censorship has a cost all on it's own.

It's not about being legalistic. Some people believe the idea of free speech means that others should be forced to listen to them or carry their message. This is false, and anti-free speech.

Thanks for the response, I'm not making that argument. Platforms are legally within their rights to censor posts they don't like. My point is that this comes with a cost.

If we sit a team down to discuss the architecture of a software application or how to solve a problem in a general, is it better to get all opinions or for some opinions to be forbidden?

I believe the answer is it depends. If someone is being destructive to general collaboration, then censoring them would likely help the group reach a better decision.

If the censorship goes further and prohibits certain ideas, what is the cost? If it's a bad idea, probably not too much. What if it's a good idea? What if it's an idea that would have halved the effort for this particular solution? The cost of censorship starts to increase!

How do you know the value of an opinion that you don't hear? Silencing dissent is a component of group think. I found this example which shouldn't be controversial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Sports

You keep saying "I'm not making that argument." If you're not making any arguments that are relevant to this particular thread about slippery slopes and overreaching governments, I'm not sure why you replied to me in the first place. Simply saying that censorship comes with a cost is so obvious and broad that it's not much of a contribution.

These corporate platforms are an extension of the Corporatist state, receiving protections & privileges from the state to grant them a monopoly over their domain. They are extensions of the government, collaborating to enforce rules that is outside of the government's charter. If the state did not want these corporations to hold so much power or even to exist, these corporations would not. If there was a true free market, these corporations would not have as much power. However, the state sanctions these corporations to hold their positions. This public/private partnership cartel is how power is consolidated over all domains of life. This is not a free market.

Claiming that these corporations have the "freedom of speech" is just like claiming that the government has the "freedom of speech". These corporations are an extension of the government. This is why a company needs to hire many lawyers, have a political presence, & often has many ex-3 letter agency executive/board members once it reaches a certain size. These corporations can do things that the official government cannot, yet they are controlled by the same networks that control the official government.

You made all of this up. Thank god we can't revoke freedom of speech by simply accusing someone of being in cahoots with big government, or we would live in actual tyranny.

Well everything you said you made up as well. That's what language is, a bunch of made up abstractions represented with symbols. Your assertion that these large corporations' (aka legal fictions) speech are being infringed upon is ridiculous & shows how out of touch with reality you are. I have some opinion, as do you, and many share my opinion. This is a clear power play by your side. Your corporations also should not have the freedom to restrict speech, any more than a government should not have that freedom. In reality totalitarianism does happen. When it does happen, we are best served by calling it what it is. The toadies can squirm, deny, downplay, & try to control the language, but we are best served by being truthful.

And restricting speech is not speech itself and does not deserve protection, anymore than me gagging your mouth is an expression of the freedom of speech. Restriction of speech does happen, no matter how much one tried to redefine or recontextualize the circumstances. Slavery also does happen today. We can play all sorts of cognitive games to deny these realities, but people are still affected in an exploitative way, which is disgusting, immoral, & goes against everything that brings the best out of humanity.

The father of Scientism demonstrates the arrogance of the adherents of Scientism/Technocracy and the reason why any critics of Scientism/Technocracy are demonized. This is why adherents of Scientism/Technocracy strive to infringe on peoples', particularly critics', freedom of speech by funneling markets & discourse through captured platforms & restricting participation & speech on these platforms. Technocrats in the government actively support & play rearguard these endeavors.

"A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men."

–Henri de Saint-Simon

Anybody reading this can get a thorough education on the Techcracy via Patrick Wood's books. "Technocracy, The Hard Road to World Order" is his latest...

>And restricting speech is not speech itself and does not deserve protection, anymore than me gagging your mouth is an expression of the freedom of speech.

Social media companies don't restrict your speech, because you were never entitled to use their services in the first place. If you compel them to distribute your message, you are violating their rights. You don't even seem to understand the issue at hand here.

As for the rest of your vacuous comment, it's like a high school sophomore trying to appear deep.

Social media companies do restrict my speech because they were never entitled to be sanctioned to be a public forum by the state, with legal & market protections by the state, without having to abide by the Constitution. If the government does not protect the Constitution & our natural rights, then the government does not represent the people & the consent of the governed is lost. If the Constitution is no longer the rule of the land, we live in a different system. aka a Technocratic Corporatocracy. Again, totaliarism does happen & is happening within the current Technocratic Corporatocracy regime as it stands. We would be better off if we had a Constitutional Republic, because Terms of Conditions or Arbitration Boards are imposed on the people & do not protect people. There is no transparent & participatory governance that respects the individual. The Constitution does protect the people only when it's enforced. There is no consent of the governed, only coercion of the governed.

Your insults only expose the fact that you have no interest in ethics or logic, only power. Like a spoiled brat, you want power over other people & you want it now. What a way to run a civilization. The inconsiderate spoiled brats want to tell everybody else what to do.

In reply to your comment at sibling level:

You haven't responded to my point above, and instead went on another irrelevant diatribe that I don't care about.

At this point, you are just trolling & not addressing any concerns that real people have. You only have condescending platitudes that can easily be read from a cue card. Enjoy shilling for the megacorps & the government. I hope they pay you well.