>><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.

Yes, actually that is part of a democracy – freedom of speech for all. Not just those who you agree with.

>It means to stand up and fight for the values of the democracy.

Sure, in a free society we can all argue for and against whatever we like. But that does not confer rights of censorship to a few who can then use their positions of power to promote and influence their own narrative.

>And again, if Parler let Nazis spread there poison, Parlers ownership is antidemocratic and most likely Nazi. A democrat would work different.

I think we can agree that one of the founding principles of democracy is freedom of speech. Denying that is not democracy as we have come to understand it.

>Who watches the watchers is a problem, but better Google, Twitter and even Facebook then Parler watching.

I think you miss something; Google, Twitter, and Facebook etc. are not altruistic watchers but rather use their position to influence. That in itself is a great danger to democracy. Parler, according to their marketing blurb on their homepage which is all I can go on, is the opposite of that - they claim they do not watch/censor and thus do not try to influence. They claim to give you the tools to filter what you see. Barring unknown nefarious hidden agendas that I don’t know about this is far more democratic. The problem is the dangers of exposing impressionable minds to radical ideas that can be harmful to society. If censorship is your only hammer then everything becomes a nail and we're on the slippery slope. Surely we can create more elegant solutions than one which in its very nature is anti-democratic.