I had this thought just the other day. It is not possible for any governing body to completely ignore the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action. There will always be a petition/revolt/exodus which results in the governing body hearing the governed.

▲

polishdude20 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah speech is the first way the populace indicates to the ruling what they want.

Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to.

	▲	georgemcbay an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to. see also: "The Four boxes of liberty" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

▲

mannanj an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action

What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).

▲

samrus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Theyll see no effect of their speech, and try something else. Like voting, protests, and violence. In thay order

	▲	customguy an hour ago \| parent [-]
		... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).

▲

felixgallo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

	▲	Avicebron 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Is there any historical precedent for a defacto public square? We can't relegate (unwillingly even) every bit of our lives to the private sector and suddenly say rights shouldn't exist.