It is interesting that I ran across your article at this time: shortly after the storming of the US Capitol by political rioters and the subsequent impeachment proceedings of the former President.

Recall how the US handled the use and ownership of limited numbers of outlets for news, particularly in the early broadcasting days. The thinking was that the greater the number of outlets (voices), the better the self policing for hate or insurrectional speech.

There were limits, then, on co-ownership of news outlets and ownership of those outlets from foreign entities (still in effect today). But as the total number of outlets (voices) expanded, the thinking was that there was less need for the regulatory protections in place.

The 1st Amendment abhorred a prior restraint of speech and yet we are seeing media like Facebook and Twitter shutting down certain individuals before they even speak (different, of course, than government shutting down those sources). But the same concerns in the early days of broadcasting are here again when the ownership of channels of communication are owned by only a few.

The concern raised by the first critical comment you cited about your article is not a great concern about Medium...yet. But it could be if a source like Medium becomes more of a monopoly as a platform for speech.

Incitement to riot has always been an exception to free speech in the States. It will be interesting to see how the impeachment proceedings and spinoff private and criminal litigation deals with the issues in weeks to come.

I like your writing.