[shiburizu]

I don't think you get to make the "internet is a public square" argument while also advocating for banning opinions from the same. I can stand in Times Square saying Romaine Lettuce is the best lettuce of all time and people might think I'm stupid (or might not) but I get to say that all I want provided I'm not being a nuisance. Disclaimer: this is NOT a defense for incitement to violence.

Let's roll with the physical-digital analogy for a second here: When I go to the convenience store to buy a muffin in the morning, right next to the register the clerk usually has the daily paper sitting on the countertop and I can buy a copy if I think the headline it's worth reading. Or perhaps I can hear the news playing overhead on some TV in a store as I walk around looking for items. Social media currently works like if my muffin was sitting between a copy of the Times and a coupon catalog when I went to the store to go look for it. I am able to look at what I want in pieces when I go to the store, and the cluttered mess of content in the timeline is a conscious choice to keep people looking at ads and reading sensational headlines.

But here's where I keep doubting myself from playing the defense of absolute free speech in this situation: I read an article here on HN recently and commented that these situations always seem to play out through media orgs. Infowars, CNN, even The Atlantic are all companies vying to get some of that sweet sweet user interaction through gaming the platforms. They are frequently condensing their content into auto-playing videos on user timelines, publishing sensational titles in the post text linking to their articles, etc. I can hardly name instances where this was about a user with no media presence. It's almost like media orgs leverage their huge presence to push their own survival.