> The debate on social media is not whether to censor, but what to censor, and that's a huge step to concede just for a little communication convenience.
You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't.
Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.
You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms.
Further should be trust people like twitter to keep our secrets when we could trust software platforms where nobody holds the key to giving our identities to a man in a suit that will do his best to ruin us.
> You are not wrong but the question isn't whether a platform is allowed to have a pov and an agenda rather it is should we trust our time, our lives, our stories to such centralized platforms.
Surely it can be inferred that the question of whether a platform has an agenda is relevant to whether they can be trusted.
Unfortunately it's a circular problem. Nobody is using those platforms because no one is using them. There is not a lot of benefit for me to switch to one of those platforms if no one I wish to follow or talk to is on them.
You could make the same argument about media in general. A newspaper runs the stories that make money and ignores the stories that don't. A TV station runs the programmes that make money and ignores the ones that don't.
Should a programme or journalist cause more trouble than they're worth, they will get axed. And/or their stories no longer accepted by the newspaper/TV network.