I don't fear private companies. As loathsome as I find Facebook's violation of our privacy and their monopolistic practices, they still don't control a military. They can't indefinitely imprison someone or separate them from their families. Governments can and do. I fear govs.

2/ Am I unhappy with the biased curation of Fox, of Twitter, of NYT...sure. And yes, many of those are pseudo-oligopolies. But if I don't like the NYT, I can get news elsewhere. It's actually possible to live without twitter. Government censorship is real censorship.

3/ As far reaching as you may think Fox or Twitter's influence is...any individual can choose to ignore it. Contrast that with real censorship - government censorship. You're put in a cell and denied access to a computer. You can't post on twitter...or anywhere else.

4/ there's tens of millions of people who face actual censorship. They have views they are prevented from expressing to anyone in any form. When they express bad views, they don't get "shadow banned", they get disappeared and never heard from again, or jailed indefinitely.

5/ I'm *not* saying, "stop whining about twitter, other people have it worse." I'm saying that there's a direct tradeoff because shifting power from private platforms like twitter to the government, and it's the latter that should scare you.

6/ saying we need the government to ensure that private platforms are unbiased is ideologically very similar to opposing the second amendment. We know that individuals with guns are risky, but some of us want that as a check on government guns.

7/ similarly, as loathsome as you may find the choices of private platforms, those are like indivdiuals with guns. Are you willing to make the government the only decider of "bias"? You trust your speech more to the gov than to many competing individuals?