> Rather than relying on a few giant platforms to police speech online, there could be widespread competition, in which anyone could design their own interfaces, filters, and additional services, allowing whichever ones work best to succeed, without having to resort to outright censorship for certain voices. It would allow end users to determine their own tolerances for different types of speech but make it much easier for most people to avoid the most problematic speech, without silencing anyone entirely or having the platforms themselves make the decisions about who is allowed to speak.<p>Most platforms have APIs that allow people to "design their own interfaces, filters, and additional services". Many also allow people to build their own platforms on top of them - subreddits, discord servers, facebook groups, etc. that they can moderate as they please. It would also be possible to build browser extensions that automatically block certain speech. But this is all besides that point, because this debate is not about letting people "determine their own tolerances for different types of speech", it's about preventing other people, who are willing to tolerate certain types of speech from doing so. This is the reason subreddits, discord servers and facebook groups get banned. The people who joined them have decided that they are willing to tolerate certain types of speech, but others are not.