Once again, the idea of free and open trade appears incomprehensible to the European mind.

You have made a few quite obvious mistakes though.

One, should civil servants have the capacity to ban speech. In most countries, there is democratic accountability of these decisions...obviously, Europe has never been one of those places with its long history of authoritarianism. The assumption here is that unelected civil servants and private companies should be able to censor people with no questions asked.

Two, the reason why the US has the issue is because those posts were also not shown anywhere else. So this is like American civil servants being able to ban books globally...just be very clear about saying that you agree that state officials in, for example, Georgia or Florida should be able to ban a book in your country.

Three, the issue that people have is also that a private company was involved in facilitating these requests. So it is like banning a book and then effectively being able to stop other publishers publishing that book. It is slightly crazy to have to point this out because this behaviour has become so normalized in the EU but these relationships between companies and the state is not normal, it is very bad. Private companies should not be performing quasi-state functions without legal basis. People on here are able to see that with Palantir but when it was Jack Dorsey silencing the baddies, they were very enthusiastic about it.

The problem is that people who argue this way have no principles. They base their opinion on which groups of people they don't like. Attempting to suggest, very feebly, that you have some kind of principle at play when you do not is really quite weak. It should also make clear exactly what is happening here, it is just about: should my government have the power to silence people i don't like (and if that government changes, they should immediately stop using those powers to silence me...thank god the governments in Europe never really change though...).