Ideal internet is free and edifying.
Unfortunately, the two goals are often in conflict. More people allowed to sell their
snake oil means more freedom. Less people allowed to sell snake oil through the
internet means less freedom but would make internet discussion more edifying.
Not free and/or not edifying mean the end of this idealized internet.
Online platform editors seek to edit discussions to make their platform more edifying.
But then their first amendment rights is exercised at the expanse of platform users'
first amendment rights.
How to determine the balance point between freedom and edification and by whom?
Given America's polarization, politically as well as socially, one person's democracy is
invariable another person's democratism.