OK but you got the right result by Connelly being "put right" by justice done to her, rather than the platform, they were her words, not the words of the platform. If she'd been silenced, she just carries on escalating the inhumanity in her mind, maybe in the kind of hidden forum that ended with the Christchurch massacre.

Bottom line is nobody should be messing around with the connectivity of networks, no human, or even an Ai knows the future, nobody knows what starts trivial and ends in bad butterfly effects.

This is more or less what Metcalfe's law says about networks, all networks, even networks involving historical information - wipe any of it, stop any of it, and harm is done. Destruction or obstruction of information, all information is harmful, no matter how nasty or upsetting it sounds, it all has to come out, all the poison has to be excised, to get the good health we really need.

This is why I say the only sensibly enforcable course of action is to elevate Metcalfe's law to statutory, and start penalising all platforms, and actually all governments that don't honor it. Any platform cancelling data or any user or even other platforms for any reason is doing harm. If what someone is saying is unpalatable to us, we should engage with them to try to educate, but if it turns out we can't, all we can do is block them ourselves from our own senses, and trust someone or something else, more suited than us, will educate them as necessary.

The UK should not have laws preventing speech of any kind. Who are we, the architects of empire and colonialism, to be setting down the law as to who can say what? If we have these laws, it quickly becomes a weapon used for political gain. It starts out trivial and ends with bad butterfly effects, even world wars and genocide, as we are seeing, building up right now.

How is it possible that folk protesting about the genocide in Palestine are being criminalised?

It starts with us not being able to talk freely.