The problem with censorship is that 'Who decides what to censor?' and 'Who censors the censors?'

For example, we have top experts telling us China is "open and transparent". That is Covid misinformation - pure and simple, but there has been no move to ban these experts from Twitter or anything else - not even a 'Disputed Claim' notification. That doesn't bother me at all - so long as i'm free to publish details as to why China is not "open and transparent". But when that right is under threat, that's when i have concerns. Sure i can publish on Formosahut, which i'm grateful for, but I would never be granted access to mainstream media platforms to challenge those claims. (I know this coz i've tried haha! The reply is either no reply or 'Now is not the time to talk about that.')

I remember a long time ago you made a point about calculating a response to something by asking the question: 'How is this hurting me (or others)?' If it's not, or if it just offends my sensibilities, then that's not grounds for banning it.

That stuck with me and i often use it as a rule of thumb. In the category of things that do hurt, we have racism, homophobia, sexism, violence, human rights abuses etc

But there's a helluva lot of stuff that doesn't really hurt anyone that still gets the full cancel-culture treatment. This is where big-tech appears to be heading - 'We believe in free speech - so long as you don't say anything that we disagree with.'