> let an adversary control the information flow to a huge portion of the population is beyond me.
Because most of the possible responses are various forms of censorship.
Because most of the possible responses are various forms of censorship.
China has the most draconian censorship in the world: lethal censorship. Nothing like the "de-platformed" or "down-voted" censorship Americans face.
I have come across some deeply misguided interpretations of the word "censorship" - this might take the cake.
Censorship is going to happen, on all platforms, no matter what. Call it "moderation" or "upvoting" or "algorithmic recommendation", doesn't matter, the censorship is there, like it or not.
Instead of knee-jerk opposition to anything that reminds you explicitly of the abstract idea of "censorship", consider instead what forms censorship can take on any particular platform and whether you trust the people with the ability to leverage those forms to use it responsibly.