[eimrine]

> taking down content that the platform doesn’t want to host is not illegal, and not a free speech violation

It may or may not be a free speech violation due to some circumstances not being told. For example, if go to [1] and press on "total edits" then we realize that George W. Bush is the most edited Wikipedia's page except some system pages. What is it if not a censorship? I do not want to spread conspiracy but I would not surprise if some of that edits even do not listed (I mean wiped) because of a little bit of more needness for Wikipedia to obey the American law than needness to obey some other countries' laws.

> and it will never actually materialize, kind of like full-self-driving and high-speed underground trains.

Please no ad hominem if not required for disclosure of your point.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_frequently_edit...

[gregjor]

You can post anything you want about George W. Bush without fear of government censorship on your own web site. Wikipedia’s editors are not obligated to give you a platform. You are confusing freedom of speech with an imaginary right to force platforms and sites like Wikipedia to publish it.

Read the First Amendment and then reason from that why Wikipedia or Twitter are obligated to let Elon Musk or anyone else on their platforms. Congress has made no law restricting Elon Musk’s speech, or what Wikipedia shows on the George W. Bush page. You can call it censorship but only censorship by the government is covered by any principle of free speech. By the same logic I have a right to play baseball, but not in your living room if you don’t want me to.