3 ms·

This is what the "left/alt-left/whatever you want to call them" don't understand. You may initially benefit from censorship because you are the initiators and

This is what the "left/alt-left/whatever you want to call them" don't understand. You may initially benefit from censorship because you are the initiators and the one's with the pull, but sooner or later, everyone else will start organizing. When mormons/christian groups/conservatives/etc organize and start flagging atheist/lgbt youtubers/content and getting them taken down, are you going to celebrate censorship? The beauty of free speech is that as long as everyone has it, you have it too. The problem with censorship is if you can censor, then so can others. Fine. You don't like hateful racist speech. Ban it. But others don't like hateful atheist/lgbt/etc speech either. I'd rather live in a free speech world with "hate" than a censored world without "hate".

ekiru 9y ago
> When mormons/christian groups/conservatives/etc organize and start flagging atheist/lgbt youtubers/content and getting them taken down, are you going to celebrate censorship? Given that this has happened repeatedly before, I think the response will continue to be the same when it next happens: mostly challenging the choice to censor those materials, not the choice to censor anything. In the case of, for example, Facebook or Twitter this is already apparently the case (in Twitter's case mostly using their more subtle moderation mechanisms), so yes, the stance of queer leftists who support harsher treatment of racism and such online tends to be based in a belief that being queer can in fact be treated differently in online spaces than, for example, advocating murdering black people. After all, if the status quo of online moderation is already harsher against us, that's clear evidence that it's possible for it to be differently harsh between us and neo-Nazis. [Edited to correct a typo of "mechanism" in place of "mechanisms".]

ekiru 9y ago

> When mormons/christian groups/conservatives/etc organize and start flagging atheist/lgbt youtubers/content and getting them taken down, are you going to celebrate censorship? Given that this has happened repeatedly before, I think the response will continue to be the same when it next happens: mostly challenging the choice to censor those materials, not the choice to censor anything. In the case of, for example, Facebook or Twitter this is already apparently the case (in Twitter's case mostly using their more subtle moderation mechanisms), so yes, the stance of queer leftists who support harsher treatment of racism and such online tends to be based in a belief that being queer can in fact be treated differently in online spaces than, for example, advocating murdering black people. After all, if the status quo of online moderation is already harsher against us, that's clear evidence that it's possible for it to be differently harsh between us and neo-Nazis. [Edited to correct a typo of "mechanism" in place of "mechanisms".]