[razzimatazz]

I agree selective freedom of speech is hard. Probably too hard.

I tend to support selective augmentation of other people's speech - "fact checkers have shown this to be inaccurate" next to a conspiracy fan's latest comment. As long as it is more precise than just downvoting to oblivion.

[jdashg]

And who's to object to that! Speech is free and visible, and no information is withheld, it's just not passively amplified without reasonable vetting.

[krapp]

>And who's to object to that!

I take it you didn't see the outrage around here when Twitter "fact-checked" Trump's statements - even that was denounced as propaganda and censorship.