I'm calling for a government enforced *BAN* on Censorship.
What you apparently do not see is that when you allow the government camel to put its nose under the tent, politicians will set up an arbiter, then Katy bar the door! All sorts of uncontrolled content run rampant. You still haven't convinced me.
I say control the privately owned censorship with legal and civil measures. Harvest competition against social media monopolies. But don't let our government attempt to "enforce a *BAN* on Censorship" because the result would have some ugly unintended consequences.
Arbiter? How difficult is it to Arbitrate when you have a complainant? If someone complains they were censored, then they were censored. BAM! Massive fines directed at the company that did it.
Easy peasy. No discretion necessary.
I say control the privately owned censorship with legal and civil measures.
So you still see government as the solution here, you just want to use a different, more problematic branch of government to do it.
But don't let our government attempt to "enforce a *BAN* on Censorship" because the result would have some ugly unintended consequences.
I'm not coming up with any visualizations of how government banning censorship is going to bite us, providing that the criteria of "significant traffic" is applied. It may be that they keep trying to downsize the quantity of traffic necessary for anti-censorship to be enforced, but I think this problem is far more manageable than is this existing system where big carriers of traffic are controlling what the public is allowed to hear.