You won't find any sympathy for that position here because nobody complaining about social media is actually arguing against censorship, they're arguing against moderation. HN is also not an unmoderated forum. You don't get to post whatever you want here. I also don't get to post whatever I want here, and I'm willing to make that compromise so nobody ruins the place with toxicity and spam and conspiracy theories. You can very easily witness the consequences of not doing that, by taking a look at 8chan or Parler.

I am not fishing for sympathy. I am arguing for a set of values that are a supposed foundations of US.

Now, I personally find it troubling that so many people seem to want to upend that foundation.

The private freedom of association is just as foundational to the US (and liberal society broadly) as the freedom to speak without government intervention.

Is it a private association when the extent of a reach of a given entity rivals that of a nation-state? I am not disagreeing with your argument in principle. There has to be balance. Right now, that balance is out of whack.

Yes. The public can choose to create a legal structure that does not let private entities grow so large, but we have not chosen to do so, and that choice does not mean that private entities are de facto public.

Those structures already exist. They are typically categorized under anti-trust category. The issue is that between regulatory capture, revolving door, dual party system and average voter distracted by carefully selected social issues, the choice is theoretical.

I am not automatically arguing they should be public. I am saying they should be cut down to size.

>I am saying they should be cut down to size.

I've heard that a countless number of times and yet nobody has been able to come up with a good way to do that or even demonstrate that it needs to be done, or demonstrate what it would accomplish, or demonstrate that it would not make the problem worse. Every congressional hearing I've seen has ended with a failure to even explain the basic reasons why it's being done. It all seems to eventually revert back on a list of personal grievances that some individual or group might have with the company, which do not require antitrust action to correct, and the judges notice this and throw the case out.

I would be much more in favor of something like GDPR, but the US has no political will to enact something like that, it's all personal grievances all the way down, on both sides of the aisle.

> foundations of US.

I'm not sure if you are meaning United States or emphasizing humanity, but in either direction: a private company's social media application gets to chose the content that goes on the platform. I'm all for free speech as intended by the constitution. I can say hateful things, and cannot be prosecuted by it. BUT I'm perfectly fine in a world where if I say something against a "Do no harm" policy of a website, I get kicked off that platform.

> You are labeled 'absolutist' if you argue against censorship. It is fascinating really

what's fascinating is that you are writing it on a website that "censors" opinions, based on your definition.

There are degrees of difference between moderation and censorship. At one end of the spectrum, it makes Keanu Reeves not exist in China and books banned in former USSR republics; at another, it makes 4chan look like reasonable chaps by comparison.

I am saying it is fascinating, because the label implies fervor of sorts that irrationality disliked on HN. The term was designed to work in HN. What is fascinating to me that even here, propaganda spreads well.

> What is fascinating to me that even here, propaganda spreads well.

of course it does.

even the "freedom of speech should be absolute" is propaganda.

No it's not. It's a normative opinion. The opinions against it all have horrible repercussions and difficult questions to answer such as "who should be in charge of moderating or censoring?" and "how can we trust them?"

The first one is always "my party" and the latter answer is always "because they protect my interests, and your interests doesn't count."

Meanwhile most people agree that cursing, pornography or spam - and things otherwise clearly outside the bounds of the law - should be censored. And perhaps also obvious ad hominems. But that's not what we're discussing right now. Instead we're discussing whether a Democrat should have the right to speak on a Republican forum and spread Democrat opinions there. Today that is precluded because "it's a private enterprise."

Meanwhile if freedom of speech was better governed, you would have to defend against flaws and lies with facts and logic instead of censorship, or even moderation.

But then there isn't anything precluding private enterprises from making such a place. And I happen to think people would flock to such a place. There would certainly be a lot to win for the enterprise to have so many people there, but so far the only model that seems to have worked is one where all those masses are somehow guarded against each other in sub-forums, such as on Reddit or even on Facebook. But perhaps Musk can revolutionize Twitter? What do you think?