[GavinMcG]

Except everyone is still publishing. On the internet, even! And talking on television channels with an audience of millions. You can't point to a single individual who is unable to publish their ideas online merely because their ideas are unpopular.

The pre-internet equivalent of your argument is that if the New York Times refused to run something on the front page, it was being censored. Now that a company can access 2.8 billion people, you're suggesting that it must put whatever anyone wants front and center. But there is no credible argument that every claim is equally entitled to the most accessible and popular platform, which is why you made up a parable instead.

But: anyone is still free to challenge our enlightened and compassionate ideas, and those challenges can still spread in public, online. They are not relegated to dusty libraries. You can send a link to your friend from whatever website you want. You can buy servers and use them to express any idea you choose. You just don't get to use Zuckerberg's and Bezos's hardware to do it.