> to deplatform people, types of legal content, or political views.

Who determines what is legal? What is legal in my country may not be in your's, and vice-versa. How do you decide what to show on an international media platform in such a case? Neither? Both? Let the user decide? What if my (your's) government won't let me (you) decide?

On political views, I'm not sure how to answer or correct this.

History has shown humanity that there are certain political views which are very "sticky", in the sense that they answer to something deeper in the human psyche in a way that with the right leader(s), they can create and sustain mass followings that can play host to violence and atrocity of a frightening scale against those who don't adhere to such political (or social) views.

Such political views have proven so horrifying, that certain parts of humanity has sought to stamp them out before they take hold again, to "nip them in the bud" before they even gain any kind of ground.

But the internet has proven to be fertile soil in which such views can hide and proliferate.

This is at odds with the want to allow freedom of speech and information. Such views are akin to "fighting words" or "yelling 'fire' in a theater" where such a danger doesn't exist. But they a honestly worse than that; in certain ways, such views can become and border on cultish and religious behaviour.

I could perhaps make parallels between a certain religion and a certain government of ancient times, but I'm sure you can see that (it was all politics, and it continues to play out to this day).

Is it better if we just let these views proliferate, let their political voice get louder, let them influence others until what was an atrocity committed by them becomes a lawfully executed act, as they gain political power and control? Do we just let these views and the people behind them grow and grow, until another world war ensues?

Because that's where it leads. We know this. We've seen it play out multiple times in the past. Which is why such wide "censorship" occurs.

At the same time, I don't know whether I really agree with it or not. Right now, it's considered legal because the internet is not considered a "place" or a "public sphere". It's just a bunch of interconnected privately owned networks for the most part, and we've voted in politicians (not everywhere or worldwide of course) that want and have kept it that way.

It's strange, here in the United States with the current federal government; the party mostly in power, or who came into power, put in place people in the FCC (Pai) who virtually killed off net neutrality, and also (Pai and long before him, via ALEC laws pandered to city/state governments, most in control by the same party) made it virtually impossible for "public internet", or even third-parties outside the almost monopoly of cable and telephone providers to give better or public service of the internet to people.

In other words, this party has lobbied and pulled the strings hard in order to keep the internet tightly and corporately controlled, fully private, blocking public access or "transport" on the lines.

Yet certain people of that same party are now complaining when views they espouse (or maybe silently agree with) are being "suppressed" due to market forces and such on that same private network.

It's a classic (and dumb) case of "wanting your cake and eating it too".

If they really wanted their views to be allowed freer reign, they should have pushed for full net neutrality and for public and open infrastructure for carrying broadband for everyone. Make it cheap, make it equitable, make it easy to access.

Unfortunately, they know this will also allow other views, potentially views they don't agree with, to also be voiced, and they don't want that, either.

Sigh.