[nisuni]

But a country’s policy is decided by the citizens, if you live in a democracy.

Facebook’s policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.

There’s a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.

[treeman79]

The key difference is consequence.

Tell Facebook no, they may kick you of.

Tell the government no. You go to jail. Say no to that and you get shot.

The moment it’s okay for government to control speech, you have China.

Having armed government agents showing up at a house because they don’t “agree” with the official stance is a dictatorship.

[nisuni]

I never said it’s OK for the government to control speech undemocratically like happens in China, maybe I didn’t explain myself well.

My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.

I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.

But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!

[treeman79]

I get your point. I just think it’s completely wrong.

The moment government is allowed to say what is not “protected speech” it will be abused.

Only one viewpoint will be allowed. Voting will be meaningless when only one side can get its message out.