Perhaps you will listen to Daniel Greenfield.
He’s going to have to make better arguments than this.
His entire first point is premised on the idea that the techs’ actions are solely the result of pressure from Democratic Senators. The only example he can scare up is Kamala Harris saying she would hold them accountable for spreading hate or misinformation. That’s it.
No political bias from the Silicon Valley owners and employees. No pressure from advertisers responding to boycotts. No snowflake PC behavior.
In fact, banning conservatives is “...not the voluntary behavior of private companies.”
See, it isn’t Zuckerberg or Google, it’s that freshman Senator who wields all the power. Never mind that Republicans in Congress have been more aggressive in hauling the tech lords into hearings and berating them for bias.
Why does Greenfield make such a transparently weak argument? Because he understands that the 1st Amendment applies only to government action so he has to pretend that it’s somehow the government suppressing the speech.
Even when he tries to invoke the Constitution with Packingham VS. N.C. he has to admit that the court only addressed what government could or couldn’t do, not the social media companies.
The second DARPA argument is even more desperate. By this logic the government can regulate any and everything on the internet.
Not only that, they can make your eye doctor give you LASIK therapy for free since NASA developed it.
I agree this is a hard problem but making unprincipled arguments of convenience doesn’t help.