Does the Internet Route Around Damage? – Baltic Sea Cable Cuts

By the way, the original adage from John Gilmore ("The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it") was referring to a behavior of Usenet rather than of the Internet. In particular, if articles didn't reach a node by one path, the node would still accept that they were missing (according to Usenet routing rules) and accept those articles from a different path. Thus, one could not prevent Usenet messages or newsgroups from reaching most of Usenet merely by deleting or not forwarding them on a single node. Another way of putting this is that the connectivity of Usenet was (in general though not everywhere) a web rather than a tree, and the Usenet software didn't assume that messages had to be forwarded along some particular path, if another path was available.

As with Jon Postel's maxim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle) people have also subsequently applied this to human behavior, not just the behavior of particular software.

There were ultimately more technically sophisticated means of censorship available on Usenet that were somewhat more effective.

It turns out that flooding your own lies is far more effective than trying to censor information.

Made possible in turn by giving safe haven for user content on the big social networks. Turned out to be a double edged sword.

When Rupert tried to lie about voting machines, he was fined couple of hundred mils. All the social networks mouthpiece accounts spouting nonsense suffer no repercussions whatsoever.

Will you also blame the telephone companies and mailman too?

This is the old dichotomy: either you dont censor and are just a medium (like electricity) or you do censor some things and then you are responsible of what is published. Social media seems to want to censor while not being responsible.