Having liars with big pockets broadcast lies (propaganda) works very effectively, no "black market suppression of the truth" is needed to weaponize bad ideas.
The root problem with modern discourse and social media is subtle, unforced siloing of communication within subgroups, so that there's not enough subgroup-bridging discussion. Overton windows shrink until subgroup-bridging discussion is mostly impossible. That all happens without any active censorship.
This comment is the text version of that cartoon where the dog sits in the room where everything is on fire thinking "this is fine."
I'm assuming you are liberal. Go read Popehat's views on blasphemy laws. He's liberal.
That's because there's more harm-promoting speech, and more incoherent lies, from the right? Saying there should be equal treatment of left and right speech regardless of the content is nonsense.
I was also quite surprised to hear that my community wants to take away rights from black people, which I heard in a radio ad not so long ago.
The left has its equal share of hobgoblins.
Have you checked this? What's their opinion on, for example, Black Lives matter?
That you can seriously entertain Republicans would remove black freedoms if not for Black Lives Matter just turned this thread into one where you can rant away without my participation.
I'm learning to walk away from hate.
On the other end we have the open town square where the loudest speakers and richest will overpower all other voices until none can hear anything and chaos pours forth.
From both we see people flee into isolated subgroups with perfect echo chamber where the oppressed be free from the loud and censors, with the eventual result of polarization where those outside turns in their eyes into less and less human. From there hate and violence ensures and we go back and ask our self, did we want the censors or loudest to rule.