Does a social media company censoring Trump, a known authoritarian, who believes violence a legitimate part of the political process, with a stated antipathy toward free speech and a cultish, politically significant following, lead us down the road toward greater censorship and more authoritarianism as a society than if they didn't censor Trump? I don't think so.
For approximately the same reason why I agree with a Muslim travel ban. Even if individual Muslims may be perfectly decent, worthy immigrants, Islam isn't compatible with a free society. Even if they're moderate, abrahamic faiths tend to be hereditary and their children may not remain moderate. Is using government policy to restrict the speech of authoritarians, authoritarian in itself? Maybe. Or maybe it can protect from authoritarianism. Or maybe any regulation around speech is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.
I think these sorts of things are questionauthoritarian, scientists and philosphers. Cause and effect seems ethereal here.>>771119
It would be disastrous for free speech. Social media would have to choose between being flooded with lawsuits for leaving illegal content up, and flooded with lawsuits for removing legal content.
Any time millions of post a day have to be vetted by teams numbering in the hundreds, AI has to be employed and the net that's caste will inevitably miss things that are illegal and catch things that are legal. Social media would be rendered mostly non-viable financially and legacy media would predominate again.
The correct way to regulate social media to facilitate free speech is to have something like the FCC wherein government regulates and monitors moderation policies.