> The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans.
This is the key thing people miss in the free speech debates. The reach is because it is profitable to give people that reach and host them, even if they are spreading misinformation and lies. Ban them from social media/youtube/whereever and they still have freedom of speech.
In the past, their audience would always be limited to a local network, only people they could interact with in person. It didn't make money to spread their nonsense, but now it does, and tech companies have no incentive to ban or remove profitable users.
This is the key thing people miss in the free speech debates. The reach is because it is profitable to give people that reach and host them, even if they are spreading misinformation and lies. Ban them from social media/youtube/whereever and they still have freedom of speech.
In the past, their audience would always be limited to a local network, only people they could interact with in person. It didn't make money to spread their nonsense, but now it does, and tech companies have no incentive to ban or remove profitable users.