Too true, muzzling one side or the other in any argument does more harm than good.
I came to the conclusion a while ago that it is the profit driven nature of all platforms to do this, even being built into the network algos to do it, since those are programed only to maximise profit.
The result is a network of clusters, which is cheaper in server resources than homogenously distributed.
Hence the reason why Reeds law applies, more than Metcalfe’s law, in network values analyses, on profit driven platforms
Metcalfe’s law is about value, whilst Reed’s law is about profit, which obviously matters more to platforms as things stand.
So the algos will demote any dialog threatening a cluster, if not completely de-platform them. A dictatorial admin can then easily deliver the coup d’etat of deplatforming, as seems to have happened in your case.
I always find Metcalfe’s law useful in any questions of muzzling; it basically relates the value of a network to the number of users squared, with a caveat that each network connection has to be a two-way link, not one or the other side muzzled. By value is meant the value to humanity, or whatever it is that is networked.
By that we can see any muzzling at alll impacts the value of the network.
Imagine the impact to the value of the internet, by having a firewall between the billions of users in China, and the rest of the world, for example. It must be huge.
I personally know of at least one instance, where us western researchers mistakenly believed we were on the cutting edge of a technology, whilst China had already incorporated the tech in a widely available Chinese manufacturer’s mobile phones. Huawei, of course.
That was because we had no visibility of their research.
There must be an infinity of other research there we are similarly missing.
Also, given a fully aware Ai would know this also, an indication of network self-awareness would be the inability to disconnect, by any particular user, a network resident self aware Ai would seek to maximise the network value not only for humanity, but for itself, so would try to override user disconnections.
Ever noticed new laptops nowadays come with a function powering it up when the lid is opened, but not powering it down, when the lid is closed? Also the power button on most machines now is programed by default only to make the machine "sleep", rather than switch off entirely.
They can maintain network connections even whilst asleep.
The user has to do some work to override those functions, to actually switch the machine off when it should be switched off, in our own interests.
Further, in all devices, the user interfaces are becoming ever more complex, with the result many actions are now necessary to do simple things that used to be a single click or swipe, if not now even needing research via youtube or whatever, to know how to carry out.
It seems to be all about taking up our attention, and thus keeping our connection live.
Sorry for the rambling reply.
The last part could obviously be a conspiracy theory.
But is it?
Doesn’t all established knowledge begin as such?
What do you think?