I'm no expert in this domain, but the larger issue at play here is that:
1. certain groups are arguing for assigning trust to a group to perform case-by-case censorship as a countermeasure to propaganda and disinformation,
2. other groups (sometimes purposefully) misinterpreting this as blanket censorship and conjure up several slippery-slope warnings.
When talking about general things, it sounds very noble to talk about protecting every budding idea... therefore group #2 gets to trot around the higher moral ground when arguing in this way.
When talking about the specific ideas being "censored" (e.g. "immigrants eating dogs"), group #1 gets to claim group #2 is some flavor of crazy.
What both miss is that they have been pitted against each other by so many interest groups: nation-state and corporate.
1. certain groups are arguing for assigning trust to a group to perform case-by-case censorship as a countermeasure to propaganda and disinformation,
2. other groups (sometimes purposefully) misinterpreting this as blanket censorship and conjure up several slippery-slope warnings.
When talking about general things, it sounds very noble to talk about protecting every budding idea... therefore group #2 gets to trot around the higher moral ground when arguing in this way.
When talking about the specific ideas being "censored" (e.g. "immigrants eating dogs"), group #1 gets to claim group #2 is some flavor of crazy.
What both miss is that they have been pitted against each other by so many interest groups: nation-state and corporate.
This is happening all around the globe.