>><snip>
>>
>>>The question then becomes how do we protect the impressionable from extremist and harmful thought, from ideas that harm our society? That is a complex problem, no doubt. But to give the power of censorship to a few who can then control the narrative and influence outcomes is itself a great evil and a great danger.
>>
>>Twiter, Facebook, Google, and others are in this camp - they are the new gatekeepers and they use their position to drive a narrative. Is that a societal good?
>
>That's the problem it is. But that does not stop that Nazis must be censored to broadcast into the wild. If you own a pub. you can throw out idiots or not. Keeping the idiots will make your pub an idiots place. If you own a social media you have the same choice. And we have the right and duty to name places where the idiots gather. That is participation in democracy. Living in a democracy does not mean to let every idiot have it's saying. It means to stand up and fight for the values of the democracy.
>
>And again, if Parler let Nazis spread there poison, Parlers ownership is antidemocratic and most likely Nazi. A democrat would work different.
>
>Who watches the watchers is a problem, but better Google, Twitter and even Facebook then Parler watching.

We will have to agree to disagree. Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. can and do influence a particular ideological narrative - a very dangerous precedent imho (and leaving aside for the moment the addictiveness built into these social media platforms by their designers on purpose). I believe in free speech and will defend the speech even of those I fundamentally disagree with. This is a principle - it cannot be applied only when it suits. Censorship does not remove anti-social behaviour and thinking. It only drives it underground.