[aniro]

More like half of those that cast votes in the last Presidential Election cast votes for the sitting POTUS (well, technically a significant number less than half but that argument is pointless b/c of the electoral college).

It turns out that group represents less than 20% of the population (~63 million out of ~328 million is less than 20%).

If alienating them is an unintended byproduct of simply labeling a verbal invective that incites violence and provably presents lies to the detriment of public health might be a worthy venture in content moderation. The mere act of labeling outright lies and calls to violence as such really shouldn't be so controversial.

[spoopyskelly]

Social media platforms should only moderate illegal content, not things they (you) don't agree with.

[aniro]

First Amendment guarantees were created to prevent The Government from regulating speech, not to private entities from doing so. Are they private or public entities? Are they required to use their technologies and resources to publish any and all content that isn't explicitly illegal?

What if some content is deemed illegal in some jurisdictions and not illegal in others? If a community decides to ban a piece of art (such as a book, or a photograph, or a movie) should the platform then be liable for moderating that content specific to that location? Doesn't that imply that in order to accomplish that task they MUST track user location? What a win that would be, legislation that requires location tracking in order for compliance to occur.

Should "Legal" be the ultimate arbiter of what is right, or what is just? How has that worked out for us in the past?