For me I would hold the social media companies more to account when it comes to hate speech and harassment online and force social media companies to do more to stop online harassment and hate speech.
For me I would hold the social media companies more to account when it comes to hate speech and harassment online and force social media companies to do more to stop online harassment and hate speech.
Not everything you disagree with is hate speech. I think eg Germany has pretty strict limitations on specifically hate speech, but there are still plenty of people voicing opposing views.
That was my point. Free speech to me is FREE speech. Not "free speech unless ". I might hate what i hear but i would fight for the right for others to voice that shit. And yes we have strict limitation. And i dislike it. Even though nothing there would restrict me.
That only really works if the government is preventing you from saying it, and it’s not something like slander or causing panic. If your lemmy instance banned talking about Pickles, it’s not a free speech issue. It’s a private instance who can have their own rules.
Correct. If i own a platform, i decide it’s laws. Still doesn’t make unfree speech free 😊 I personally prefer spaces where everyone can voice any shit. Censorship is for lazy minds and a dull audience. IMHO.
You better be ready to own the consequences of that stance, which I assume you’ve been privileged not to need to. You can look up any number of mass shooters or terrorists who only got there due to online radicalization.
Just for the sake of the argument, I’m assuming we (here) actually have a problem with shooters/terrorists (we don’t): So because a fraction of people abuse something makes it valid to punish everyone else too? Is this some “think of the kids!!!”-argument? Surely someone could be radicalized because he COULD. But also there could someone having the opportunity to speak at all. Like a woman in oh-so-many-countries on this stupid planet.
The negative consequences of free speech don’t warrant the necessity of banning it alltogether. And if we do, who sets the rules? Who draws the line? And do you think the same when the line might be drawn before YOUR opinion? How’d you think about that then? Or are YOU privileged enough to not have to worry about it?
I’m going to stop you at we don’t have a problem with terrorists. Shit take, I don’t care to continue.
Who is “we”? Where I live we don’t have such things. At least not in a noteworthy quantity. Not everyone is us-american :)
I always find this take to be remarkably short-sighted.
Because if you actually want to hear diverse opinions, you have to cultivate a space where diverse people, with diverse experiences, feel free to speak.
Pretty much every space that tolerates open bigotry becomes deeply unpleasant for the targets of that bigotry. Which means those people tend to leave.
Which in turn means that those spaces soon turn into the dullest echo chamber, populated only by people unaffected the bigotry. Sure no views were censored. You just harass everybody different off the platform. The net effect is the same.
While you’re not wrong, you’re not right either. Is it the fault of the principle of free speech, or the legion of stupid people being allowed to talk freely? You probably want restrictions because it would never apply to you. Denying you talking about stuff that doesn’t phase you, is easy. What if that platform bans opinions that you happen to have? Would you change your opinion or keep away from that, possibly, only platform for that.
Sure, if you point at 4chan or similar…free speech attracts shitnuggets and end up being an echo chamber. But that’s the fault of us humans being crap, and not free speech being inherently bad.
I’m not talking about “the principal of free speech”. I’m pushing back on the foolish assertion that moderation leads to echo chambers for lazy and dull minds. When exactly the opposite is true.
I’m saying that if you want to hear diverse opinions, a free-for-all is a bad idea. Because that free-for-all leads to echo chambers.
No no, don’t make stupid assumptions about me so that you don’t have to confront my point.
Most of them do. Your assumptions are wrong.
I never said free speech was inherently bad. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you imagined that I wrote.
I did not assume, I asked what-if. Slight difference. But fine. You’re for moderation even if you’re the one being banned. That’s fine. At least you’re no hipocrite then.
But how can I hear “diverse opinion” if X opinions are banned/blocked/moderated in the first place? Reddit was always a good example of echo-chambers and circle-jerking-places where many subreddits were heavily moderated and silencing anything those people didn’t wanna hear. How does moderation help here?
There is no space where all opinions are welcome. It simply does not exist. Some opinions are going to force out others.
If you run a space where Nazi opinions are okay to speak, you can’t really expect to hear Jewish opinions. Or opinions of PoC or queer people or disabled people and so on and so on.
So most places do the calculations. You can ban this one view. And in return an entire spectrum of views becomes more welcome.
Bigotry is a painfully simple, painfully shallow, and painfully boring viewpoint. It is almost completely one-dimensional, simplifiable to the idea that the “other” is inferior or dangerous and is to be shunned or feared. It is a viewpoint that we all already know, one we have all already heard. Banning it loses us almost nothing, and in return we gain so, so many more valuable insights.