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.
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.
Of course there are places where the topic already strongly defines borders. Of course noone needs the opinions of nisogynists in an abuse-survivor-place. Or jews in a nazi-place or vice versa.
In a political discussion, why shouldn’t nazis also speak their crap? Maybe i just expect too much of people to voice their opinion and still knowing when to shut their holes out of respect. Yet having the freedom to do so, but not using it.
I really don’t wanna defend nazis or bigots. But what insights do we gain from banning them? We’d actually loose insight of . Maybe one could actually discuss with nazi his ideology and maybe even convince him that it’s bonkers.
I held long discussions with religious nutjobs, well knowing how usually futile that is.
I’d urge you to try and read my comments again.