2 ms·
This article makes the assumption that > the solution to bad speech is more good speech But this isn't true. Sure, in many cases it is, but once we enter the
by eridius 10y ago
This article makes the assumption that
> the solution to bad speech is more good speech
But this isn't true. Sure, in many cases it is, but once we enter the realm of hate speech and ideologies that pose a threat to the survival of people, good speech is no longer sufficient if you're still allowing the bad speech to continue. If a white supremacist is spouting off their nonsense, you cannot counter that with "good speech", because the people who buy into that ideology aren't going to be swayed by anything you can say. But allowing them to continue espousing their ideology threatens people of other races, because this creates an atmosphere where people think that kind of speech is acceptable, which leads to other worse problems.
- hnsucks2 10y agoDo communists - who have killed millions - get the same treatment? Doesn't promoting Marxism endanger peoples' safety? What about black power groups? Anti-fascists who encourage violence? Groups agitating for Sharia? Let's be consistent then.
- generic_user 10y agoThe counter argument is that there is 'hate speech' on twitter directed at many types of people and many ideologies that 'threaten the survival of people'. But twitter is only removing certain groups and ideology while sanctioning others that are just as hateful and threatening. So twitter loses the moral argument that they are trying to prevent these activities. They expose an ideological bias. And by hosting only certain types of 'hate speech' and radical ideologies they are promoting it.