Universities are also "speakers," with an independent mandate to teach, research, and pursue truth for the common good. And this requires taking sides.
Yes, a private company can choose what content they allow. But to add to my argument, social media companies didn't ban that story on their own decision, it was after intelligence agencies acted towards them. (Sorry, English is my second language)
Who was it that suppressed Hunter Biden story or asked for "antivaxxer" doctors to be shut down on FB/Twitter?
Sure, you will find some kind of excuses for the above, but the unbiased fact is that both sides engage in silencing of free speech according to their political agenda.
I know, it's ridiculous for people to simultaneously agree and disagree with things said on both sides of political spectrum. I should work on one party unanimity, my bad.
By the way... While you're laughing your ass of, Hunter Biden story (no matter what you think of it) wasn't supressed on all social media?
Yes, story broke out eventually, but it was silenced on social media when it broke because of political orders - a fact. I don't know why saying that automatically makes people wince in horror. Both sides of political spectrum engage in silencing free speech when needed.
It was silenced, contrary to free speech, because when the news broke NY Post was blocked on all social media and a link to the story couldn't be shared in any way (post or message).
No, I completely agree. I'm center left and see a lot of this coming from the left too. I was surprised to see all the agreement that it's only from the 'right', it is totally both, without question.
More people should adopt deeper models of politics, like six or nine axis models because that's how you really get at the features that drive censorship and limiting free speech.