Explain to me how you would get your OpEd published or get on TV tomorrow, today, or 20 years ago. Explain to me how _everyone_ gets to do it.
>Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space.
The point is it doesn't need to be. Newspapers are now no longer constrained by how much paper they can fold. TV is no longer constrained by how many channels can be broadcast OTA or via Coax.
>Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high.
Censorship is not the same thing as not publishing your drivel. Are you suggesting that if you submit an OpEd to the Wall Street Journal and they don't publish it that they're censoring you? They're making a curated, editorial choice, it's not censorship - they are a private company with no obligation to publish or give platform to your ideas.
>Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"?
This is what I'm telling you - in all media formats prior to The Internet, the owner of the platform or editor of the platform or governance for OpEds determined what was worth publishing/platforming and what wasn't.
>It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local.
Is that good or bad?
>Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation.
We burned "witches". There has never been a time in human history where we were more tolerant than today.
The Catholic Church murdered people for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric.
We have less curation than we've ever had in human history - by miles. We may have over-rotated.
>There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.
There has always been consolidation - through money and power. There was an opening in the 20th century, and we've been less constrained every day since the invention of the printing press.