Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing.
>That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say"
Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. Solid, cogent, fair or interesting letters get published in credible platforms (i.e. newspapers and TV) - as determined by the Editors or the OpEd review boards depending on the governance of the particular platform.
> and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth.
Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Hell, even in full page advertisements, Newspapers can and will choose not to take your money if it's something that they think is harmful or antithetical to their platform. And they always have.
This isn't new or unique.
>It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so.
What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that.