system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Major platforms for speech should not be censoring speech to "limit misinformation"

I am not talking about any particular topics on this post.  Platforms that people sometimes rely on for expressing ideas to large groups of people do not have to allow posts of certain topics.  I think that they shouldn't be legally obligated to do anything, however I think it do think it is wrong.  It is especially wrong when these platforms are limiting speech, but referring people to specific places to get information, as they are funneling people to get their information from a place of their choosing, on topics that could potentially be controversial or have conflicting information on them.  In addition, if platforms are limiting speech, they should limit all speech on a topic, not take down some posts and leave others.
gpt
Let's take it to the extreme and work backwards.

In a small town there is an election for mayor. 

There is one local paper, and the population of this town trusts everything it reads in the local paper.

The paper's policy on submissions is completely liberal. Anyone can write anything and it goes in. Each submission is $1000.

One candidate, a millionaire, decides to lie about his competition. He writes 5 stories each for each of his candidates. He says they're crooks, unethical, unfit to lead. They're compelling arguments.

His opponents only can get together $1000. So they each write one piece defending themselves, but the next week there are 10 more stories about them. Every week, 10 more stories. The public decides to vote in the millionaire, because if there were so many stories some of them had to be true.

It's simply not democracy.

So the next election the paper decides to introduce a policy to confirm that every submission is truthful.

That's what's going on.