NewsBusters of the Media Research Center tweets that it has recorded over 8,000 cases of online censorship.

It is a blessing to live in a nation where the freedom of speech exists.

Online censorship is a double-sided coin. On the one hand, online media platforms are private companies and, as such, hold rights to make business decisions. On the other hand, companies that purport themselves to be marketplaces of online communication and information dissemination should allow communication and information dissemination.

Widely used media platforms bear a particular responsibility to maintain credibility on this issue. Though they are their own companies and conduct their own business, part of that business is properly stewarding the power and influence they hold. Perhaps they are "too big" to censor. If a major media platform selectively censors certain content, that selective censorship has a disproportional impact on other media and communication in general. When content that should not be censored is censored, there is an uneven disruption in the flow of communication.

A debate can be had about how, in practice, needed censorship and free speech should be balanced.

Some censorship is needed. If any platform, large or small, operates under the guideline of not allowing certain vulgar or otherwise distasteful content, that can, within reason, be a basis for censorship enforcement. A problem arises when an objective censorship guideline is stretched to include content that is disliked by the company or censors that be. A political candidate or officeholder posting content as such is newsworthy and should not be censored. There are other exceptions, as well.

The target should be as much freedom as possible, an appropriate rule of thumb for regulation in general. Censor as little as possible rather than pull down an inordinate amount of speech on flimsy grounds.