[retortio]

There was a time when the Left was opposed on principle to our lives being controlled by the whims of huge corporations.

Ironically when this monopolistic control extends to our speech and information, the Left has suddenly forgotten its principles. Arbitrary black box moderation is OK because "they're on OUR side".

Well, I know enough of history to know that contenting yourself with a dangerous or corruptible system because it happens to align with you at the present moment is incredibly foolish.

Some of us still believe in the principle of free speech. Its protection from governments and corporations is a solemn duty as far as I'm concerned.

[rschulman]

I'm so sick and tired of people who have no idea what freedom of speech means.

Nowhere did I say that the government should do anything to this pile of fascist idiots over at Parler. I'm just saying that a social network predicated on the idea of "we will never moderate our platform" will be an actual legitimate trash fire of a place to spend time.

Moderation is not censorship. If you're being moderated at a particular community, it means that the community thinks you're offensive and don't want to hear from you anymore.

[retortio]

What you're referring to is the codified freedom of speech protection in the Constitution. That's not what I'm referring to.

My post is about the ideal of freedom of speech. There is a debate to be had about the level to which "platforms" should respect that ideal. My position is that relying on the good faith of platforms to moderate speech is dangerous when those platforms are as dominant as Facebook/Twitter/Google are.

So you see this is separate from Article I.