[vorpalhex]

There can be. There's no legal right to free speech on social media platforms, but a platform can (and I'll argue should) support free speech.

I think if a platform wants to not support free speech, that's a fair choice to make, but as a user I want them to communicate that in abundance. I don't expect the Disney Club to support sex workers describing their autobiographies, but I would expect them to not pretend they are a bastion of free speech or a platform for the world.

[ddalex]

FB is clearly not being free speech - they remove posts all the time for the most variety of reasons, the most begnin of which being female nipples

[koheripbal]

There's a specific law about showing female nipples to minors - so that's a terrible example.

[rorykoehler]

For that to work it needs to be one person one profile with real identities. No bots.

[vorpalhex]

To be anonymous is necessary for free speech. You should never confuse social media for the public opinion.

[rorykoehler]

What we have now is a DDOS on free speech. How to solve it?

[vorpalhex]

A DDOS is an attack because it removes resources. Other people having opinions that disagree with yours isn't removing resources from you.

Whether it's newspapers or a town square, there have always been people who have been loud. Loud does not mean right. It also doesn't mean you need to muzzle the people who are loud.

[rorykoehler]

1 person can be millions of people online. Based on your response I don’t get the perception you understand the gravity of the problem we are facing.

[vorpalhex]

Who is we? And why is that a problem?

[dd36]

Facebook can verify identities and keep you outwardly anonymous.

[sangnoir]

That might be easier to do with a national ID system, and maybe a government ID attestation service... just to be thorough.

[dd36]

Why? We have sufficient ways to ID.