I think the original comment was highlighting the irony of being a land of "free speech," yet the government being in a position to cancel such speech, not at the broadcaster's desire.
I understand that but that’s not what’s happening here. The government is clearly letting him speak on one of the world’s largest social media platforms.
Then we have nothing to discuss. The thread began with a distinction between platforms and publishers and their respective rights and responsibilities.
I think the original comment was highlighting the irony of being a land of "free speech," yet the government being in a position to cancel such speech, not at the broadcaster's desire.
I understand that but that’s not what’s happening here. The government is clearly letting him speak on one of the world’s largest social media platforms.
Then we have nothing to discuss. The thread began with a distinction between platforms and publishers and their respective rights and responsibilities.
Yep. But the sore point is that internet hosts claim to be platforms, when they are mostly publishers. Not a problem in this case.