[javajosh]

What is the go to URL that people like that summarizes the debate around censhorship vs speech rights? Like so many other things, it seems to me that both sides have a very strong case, but that ultimately, in all matters, practicality wins. In this case, speech freedom is ideologically correct, and Meta is being short-term practical (money!) but long-term impractical (undermining democracy will undermine key infrastructure upon which Meta depends). E.g. censorship is generally very bad, even extremely bad, but this particular set of claims is a contagion to which large swaths of the public are vulnerable to, and which present a clear and present danger to US democracy. Furthermore, this isn't a case where there is any nuance: every claim of fraud has been undermined. To anyone paying attention to these claims and their response knows the score; so to see the population get swayed because of their own ignorance and prejudice is a sacrifice too great for the altar of "free speech". Especially when you factor in how much less free speech will become if they win.

[bb88]

You mean Truth Social where Trump called his enemies "vermin"? Or do you mean something like the NYTimes, which Trump calls "Fake News"?

I have no idea whether Trump would be an Authoritarian or not if he wins president again, but propaganda around Jews was why Germany had no issues with death camps being run in their name.

Unfortunately all media is profit driven, with the notable exception of PBS and NPR. At some point you're going to trust someone. My neighbor across the street trusts Fox News, e.g.