> It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.

Well said. Hopefully the legislature can address the problem before the courts have to step in. Or even if the executive would just apply the anti-trust regulations already in place.

What's surprisingly missing from these discussions is a special case of propaganda.

Should e.g. Goebbels-like informing have a place in modern society? Is yelling "fire!" in a theater an always protected speech?

If First Amendment isn't absolute - it's not clear - what are the important differences? Did Twitter overreacted on Trump's tweets and curbed free speech - or did it finally decided to protect its users from dangerous manipulations?

> Is yelling "fire!" in a theater an always protected speech?

Not if there isn't really a fire or smoke. And why should such lies be protected?

> If First Amendment isn't absolute - it's not clear - what are the important differences?

Must we go back to absolute fundamentals every time someone claims free speech? Inciting violence is clearly out of bounds. So much so that Trump and others have learned to dance around it with dog whistles and intentionally vague statements like "stand down and stand by".

I'm not sure I understand you enough to make judgements according to this. "Stand down and stand by" could be inciting violence, I think.

So, no, we didn't seem to go back to absolute fundamentals enough to have this question closed. It's unclear. As soon as we have the theater case - perhaps any exception - it becomes more complex, and I didn't see enough clarifications, with all my good intents.

Sorry if I was unclear myself. While the boundaries on free speech are important, they don't seem so vague to me. At least in the case of violence it's been tested in the courts.

And what appear to be intentionally vague statements or encoded messages could be attempts to exploit uncertainty. With the goal being to incite violence without directly saying "if I lose storm the capital by force".