Ask HN: Thoughts about the purge of influential commentators on social media?

What should be the role of the state in regards to the content of our technological platforms? Does it have a role in securing the ability for all opinions to be expressed? Does it have a role in explicitly restricting the opinions that are expressed? Should the companies decide for themselves?

As much as I have a fundamental problem with Facebook/Twitter banning this batch of influential commentators, I'm pretty surprised and disappointed with how many of them are immediately looking for this problem to be solved with legislation. I would expect them to advocate boycotts or find/make alternatives to these platforms. I understand that for a lot of these people their livelihoods are on the line, but when you're literally in the business of putting forth a system of morality that specifically advocates for the utility of liberty over the forcible use of legislative authority, to immediately abandon your principles and seek shelter from the state the moment it suits you is a complete moral failure.

That being said, there is an important consideration. When the state (notably, the EU) is attempting to make it impossible for platforms to not be responsible for the content their users produce (i.e. Facebook can be legally responsible for the content within a post made by a user, and is therefore legally obligated to censor in accordance with additional state mandates), the problem ceases to be one that can be solved independently of the state. But that does not mean we need additional legislation forcing these platforms to host any and all content, it just means we need to dismantle the state's capability to prevent the existence of alternative platforms that do.