“Regardless of what individuals call it, standards already exist for hate speech. Legal standards.”

The only standard that matters is the First Amendment. It is designed specifically to protect speech that may be considered hateful, vile and disgusting. That's the whole purpose of the protection. That's the legal standard.

Any laws or regulations enacted below that Constitutional guarantee should be challenged and rejected.

---

“Standards for toxic and abusive behavior are forming over time on social media platforms right now regardless of anyone’s desire to leave it to subjective interpretation. So it’s happening.”

Agreed. That's what the platforms are doing. But let's be honest, a large part of policing this "toxic and abusive" behavior is based on subjective interpretation. There's no getting around that. So it’s fundamentally unfair.

---

“As for the echo chamber — I’m well aware of what it means. The algorithms curate the content you see based on your interests, who you follow and who they follow. What you see is different from what I see and you are more likely to see sentiment that you agree with.”

This is so sad and disturbing. I always suspected what you're saying is true, but I was hoping I was wrong.

The last thing I want to see in my social media posts, especially when I'm writing about policy or other debatable topics, are the views of people who agree with me. There's no utility in that. It would be more helpful to see the posts of those who challenge my ideas. I sincerely hope that goes away one day and content is free to rise and fall organically.