I think the idea is that the platform has the power to prevent people from saying these things you find (extremely) objectionable, and so you feel compelled not to use said platform if they refuse to do so (and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior).

> and thereby appear to be passively endorsing the behavior).

This “passive endorsing” is a great social construct! It allows anybody to go after TMobile for passively endorsing all the lies I said to pretty women over the phone.

That seems like a bit of a strawman. There's a pretty significant difference between public and private speech. Regardless, I'm not arguing what or when these platforms should censor. Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content.

> Just trying to explain why certain content on a platform could cause someone to choose to stop using that platform, even if they're not personally exposed to that content.

This explanation seems pretty strange to me.

1. If I am not exposed to some content - how do I know that it exist?

2. If I see that platform does not delete an objectionable content and does not force me to contact it - I would feel much safer in re that my non-objectionable would not be deleted too.

I'm not sure why you would be concerned that your non-objectionable content would be deleted regardless. Either way, it sounds like you put greater value in freedom of speech, whereas others put greater value in condemning speech they find harmful. I can see how reasonable people could have differing priorities there.

Bad Twitter content spreads to infest mainstream media. Bad social media content led to an attack on the Capitol to overthrow the government.