[adamsea]

Good question and the answer is no one knows how to create rules about who is or isn’t fit to vote (beyond the most basic things like age, and even with that there’s an interesting history) without also giving so much power to whomever is able to set those rules that the result isn’t a democracy at all.

[mlang23]

Exactly my point, and the same applies to corporate censorship. Since we have allowed corporations to perform censorship completely independent and on their own, free speech is a thing of the past.

Another way to see this is that those with less education or influence are basically the new women. The argument against giving women the right to vote was basically based on the same viewpoint. They dont know about the world, so all they can do is harm if allowed to vote.

[adamsea]

I think I'm confused, then.

> If you want to drive a car, you have to proof you are able to do so. Why not demand the same if you want to vote?

Not sure if you meant this as a rhetorical question, an ironic one, or a real suggestion about creating restrictions around who can vote.

Either way, "free speech is a thing of the past" is a bit all-or-nothing. It's always been a battle, never as good as we thought it was (such as the argument Noam Chomsky makes in 'Manufacturing Consent'), and always been tricky to figure out what to do when, and where.

But it's not a thing of the past.

[mlang23]

Indeed, you must be confused, since I never wrote anything about cars.