[wwweston]

> people must be allowed the ability to discern for themselves which information is useful

Including people who run institutions like Google.

If they can be compelled to disseminate content they think of as irresponsible, so can you.

[fvdessen]

Google has a monopoly on searching for information, which makes it as different to me as a nuclear bomb is to a butterknife. They need to play by different rules

[wwweston]

Not only does Google not hold a true monopoly on search (they hold top mindshare, but there are several other easily available search engines one of which I use frequently), this particular brouhaha is about hosting, not search, on which they don't hold anything that could even be reasonably confused with a monopoly.

[unyttigfjelltol]

It's even more alarming that the host of my data is actively scanning those 1s and 0s for signs of deviation from truth and sending those 1s and 0s it views as untruths down a memory hole. I mean, why stop there, why not just correct the untruths? Flip a few 1s here that should be 0s. This strikes at the core value proposition of tech and who is who is boss of what data.

[concordDance]

One can agree they should not be compelled while ALSO thinking it would be much better for society that they stop censoring. Just because setting up an institution to compel would be worse than the censorship we're trying to fix doesn't mean the censorship is good.