> That's a false dichotomy and the exact argument one would expect from a proponent of censorship. That puts you in the wrong camp, the fascist authoritarian camp, sadly.
Sadly you don't really elaborate on how my comment reveals the authotarian position you do falsly assume I hold.
There is a position between no censorship and full authotarian style censorship and it is a common rethoric vehicle to first talk about the extremes to show that the reasonable area is somewhere inbetween (and then we can talk about trade offs and priorities).
My main point as someone who studied media science is that we cannot treat modern social media with the exact same rules we treated other speech with, because ultimatly it is a different place to speak in. The social distance is lower than anything we ever had in history, the audience bigger than ever in history, it feels private but you are in the spotlight at the same time (and people tend to act like this). It is a place where a rural person communicating a rural opinion will be directly next to a city person communicating a city opinion. Before social media you had natural borders of which people could actually hear (and/or react to) each other. So it is fundamentally different place than anything we ever had before it.
And different places have different rules. Someone who speaks loudly in a library will be thrown out (because the place has a certain function and them speaking loudly interferes with that function). Someone who repeatedly and loudly farts in a restaurant might be thrown out. Someone who listens to music in church might be thrown out. A bare-breasted women in a mall might get thrown out etc. Different places, different rules.
The question now is: what kind of place is something like twitter? What behaviour shall be accepted or restrict there and with what goals?
If our goal is the equivalent of a verbal bar brawl where people can let out their innermost emotions we might end up with different rules than if our goal is rational and fact-oriented discourse with the goal of moving discourse forward (these places have typically stricter rules of which speech is acceptable, as can be seen for example here on HN).
With twitter a lot of the emerging behavior that can be observed is a direct result of or a direct reacrion to the systemic structure of the place. If this shall be seriously changed you have to either establish a new culture how one has to behave in such a place (hard) or you change the systemic variables itself (easier).
But one point I want to stress is: by allowing most speech one might involuntarily prevent other, more nuanced speech from ever emerging.