I totally agree, the president shouldnt have been banned. It has set a bad precedent (I am so glad he was though). What if the owners of twitter/fb were supportive of the president? What if Zuckerburg or Dorsey/other want to run for president? Or if Trump actually owned a stake in these platforms?
The answer is for govn legislation and service providers adhering to it. No sharing hate, no sharing conspiracies, no misinformation - The governing bodies to decide what is misinformation and conspiracy. It isn't good but it is control.
This is interesting, about the printing press and its impact ...
"Whenever a new information technology comes along, and this includes the printing press, among the very first groups to be ‘loud’ in it are the people who were silenced in the earlier system, which means radical voices.
It takes effort to adopt a new information technology, whether it’s the ham radio, an internet bulletin board, or Instagram. The people most willing to take risks and make the effort to be early adopters are those who had no voice before that technology existed.
In the print revolution, that meant radical heresies, radical Christian splinter groups, radical egalitarian groups, critics of the government,” says Palmer. “The Protestant Reformation is only one of many symptoms of print enabling these voices to be heard.”
As critical and alternative opinions entered the public discourse, those in power tried to censor it. Before the printing press, censorship was easy. All it required was killing the “heretic” and burning his or her handful of notebooks.
But after the printing press, it became nearly impossible to destroy all copies of a dangerous idea. And the more dangerous a book was claimed to be, the more the people wanted to read it. Every time the Church published a list of banned books, the booksellers knew exactly what they should print next"
