The root cause of this is that our society has forgotten how to argue for free speech as a moral case. We've taken it for granted for so long, we can't remember why it's good. Meanwhile the enemies of it have spent years steadily attacking it, often with lies (e.g. the numerous fake claims of Twitter bots controlling elections).
I try to listen to podcasts, occasionally, that are contrary to my own beliefs, not because of free speech but rather to make sure that I don’t end up in a “bubble.”
Coincidentally, I listed to something by The Hill on YouTube last week and it was reasonably good because they had three people speculating on the future economy with slightly different points of view. Not great stuff but worth having on while I was cooking dinner. Also, as a liberal, there is a conservative think tank at Stanford University that I occasionally listen to, not always comfortable for me, but worth a little time every month.
Free speech, in supporting views different from own own, is so very important.
News orgs are rushing to print the story and (at most) only include small tidbits of reactionary analysis. It isn’t the fault of the individual as much as it is the medium. The medium inherently lacks depth.
Two places to start: Daryl Cooper, Michael Tracy.
Faith affiliated:
thetablet.org Deseret.com tabletmag.com
And this site appears to exist to aggregate quality news from every angle:
The legislation is based on the principle that everyone has the right to say what they want to say, but they have no right to be heard by others. This phraseology was used by several during the recent committee hearings, including by Facebook employees for example. So it will effectively enshrine in law: shadow banning, delisting from Google search etc.
Also enshrined in the legislation is the principle of banning content which is 'legal but harmful to adults'. 'Harmful', amongst many other terms, is not defined.
Also enshrined in law will be the principle that certain types of 'journalistic' content will be protected from this censorship if it meets criteria to be decided upon by the new regulator, Ofcom.
This will be an enabling act. It is full, from front to back, of opportunity for scope creep through secondary legislation.
As I said, the UK is leading the charge with this, but the EU has been keeping pace [1]. I haven't seen similar in the US as of yet.
[0] - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safe... [1] - https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe...