As major tech companies struggle with their responsibilities to the users and communities they serve, the question of what political candidates should be allowed to say in their online postings has emerged as a flash point. Each of the various platforms have taken different approaches to this question, but they each ignore the most important consideration of all: Why is it more advantageous online for a political candidate to be sensational rather than measured?

One in five American adults report getting their news from social media, and they’re spending more than six hours every day online. The internet, most of which is controlled by a handful of large corporations, has become our public square. Political candidates and their campaigns will always go where their voters are.

So far, tech companies’ first instinct with respect to political speech by candidates has been censorship (literally, the alteration or removal of content), which includes banning, restricting features, limiting reach, and labeling posts with warnings. Censoring a candidate’s political speech—whether it is done by a government or private company—is never a neutral act. A value judgment is always involved, and it is unlikely that we would ever reach consensus on the degree of censorship that is appropriate.

Please select this link to read the complete article from Fast Company.