[kr99x]

So you're okay giving someone else the power to declare something "a threat" and sacrificing your rights to neutralize it? China is perfectly happy to declare all kinds of opinions threats to their way of life and disallow them from being spread. What's different?

You are not thinking it through. An imperfect analogy to help make the point: You can't put a backdoor in encryption "just for the good guys" because there's no way to prevent that backdoor being used by other actors. Similarly, you can't put restrictions on speech "just for the really bad things" because there's no way to prevent things being labeled as "really bad things"!

[davesque]

Your analogy doesn't hold up.

"Encryption" is not a place or a thing. It's a fact of nature. It's a mathematical truth. Anyone can take advantage of it once it's been discovered and disseminated. That cat cannot go back in the bag.

The US government is a unique thing that we risk losing control of if we don't act now to defend it. Social media platforms are single things or entities that can revert policies once a situation de-escalates.

I imagine that a lot of the people making these calls at these companies would like not to have to do it this way but feel they have no choice. I believe they would be happy to resume business as usual when they're not worried that a violent movement will overthrow their government. Until then, could you really see yourself sitting by, doing nothing, and hoping for the best while watching these maniacs use your platform to organize their movement?

[nomel]

> can revert policies once a situation de-escalates

This is rarely observed. See all of the legislation and policies that have remained, and even expanded, after 9/11. Politicians tend to make laws, not remove them. See the tax code for a good example of asinine infinite expansion.