This seems like the absolute opposite of literally every single article I've ever read, I have not once heard a single person make this claim before. Am I misunderstanding something, are we not talking about the same thing?
> If you are saying tech companies should be broken up
I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review.
> If you are saying that they should be forced to promote conspiracy garbage - I disagree.
Once again, I said nothing of the kind, the transcript of what I said is right there for your review.
> I hope so, ISIS uses social media.
Considering:
a) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
b) What I actually wrote
....does that seem like an appropriate response?
> I disagree that is what is happening here
I am referring to the possibility that if free speech in general is restricted to the point that large portions of the population rarely hear views that might conflict with their own, one possible result might be that they lose the ability to think critically, and perhaps the ability to hold the simplest of good faith conversations with those whose actual opinions may differ only slightly.
> As well, I think your dogma towards "free speech at any cost"
If I had actually said anything of the kind, I would agree with you.
I asked some fairly reasonable questions that 10 years ago wouldn't have been considered controversial at all. I would hope that you and anyone else that comes across this exchange review the words I have written, and the words you have written in response, and try to think calmly and clearly about the nature of this situation. There is something very, very strange going on.
As for free speech, if there's no longer anyone left who is able or willing to engage in an honest discussion, perhaps there's no point in even trying to defend the principle.