WatDabney

Then free speech also means banning, or at least strictly limiting, corporate political contributions.

This anti-distortion rationale for government speech regulation used to be central to the First Amendment, especially in campaign-finance cases, until the Supreme Court rejected it when striking down corporate campaign-contribution limits in Citizens United v. FEC.

But of course that counts for nothing, since the Supreme Court is a wholly owned tool of the plutocratic oligarchy.

I don’t have the foggiest idea.

And really, if I did have a good idea, I wouldn’t post it publicly anyway. That’d just be tipping my hand to the astroturfers.

“The fediverse” really can’t. That’s just the reality of a decentralized system. It’s going to be up to individual instances to sort it out.

But that’s a good thing, because what it means is that different instances can and will try different approaches, and between them, they’ll sooner or later hit on the one(s) that will be most effective.