2 ms·

You can believe in free speech while advocating for moderation. There has been many attempts over the past few years to turn the free-speech argument into one a

You can believe in free speech while advocating for moderation. There has been many attempts over the past few years to turn the free-speech argument into one against moderation, because in order to moderate a platform it necessitates censoring opinions. A lot of these arguments remind me a lot of the days when I used to play Garry's Mod. Where people claim admin abuse, censorship etc for being banned or told to go away as a result of ruining the game for other people.

dvtrn 8y ago
You can believe in free speech while advocating for moderation. Absolutely. Yet it feels lately though the loudest voices that are getting the most attention are the ones pushing for the most...(searches for his words carefully)...aggrandizing forms of responding to disagreeable speech, and, when called on it-retreat back to very supercilious, academically-loaded terminology and tactics for why you're wrong and they're right. Then there's those people out there saying we need to be punching Nazi's but I aint touching that one with a ten-foot pole. because in order to moderate a platform it necessitates censoring opinions. This though, I'm not so sure about. I've never been fond of the trend of de-platforming disagreeable viewpoints or speech that aren't directly advocating and instructing 'imminent lawless action' as a certain high court puts it.
AlexB138 8y ago
Agreed, and if I came off as arguing otherwise I misspoke. What you can't be is for free speech and for "moderation" of only speech you disagree with, which is simply bias censorship and what is often happening.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  The flaw with that is moderators and companies have to make a determination for speech they disagree with. Not all sites ban people in the same way for violent threats, and similarly all sites view inflammatory or derogatory speech in different ways. At some point in the equation there will be a value judgment made in terms of what breaks the rules. People banned by that moment will cite censorship and demand to be heard (see: the various subreddits banned by Reddit) while people wanting that content removed will celebrate. Making the argument into one purely about censorship ends up removing the nuance and reasoning for why someone was banned, which is why when people talk about conservative voices being banned by twitter, they often ignore the damage and harm Alex Jones for example has been responsible for to many families involved in school shootings or the various conspiracies he peddles.

dvtrn 8y ago

You can believe in free speech while advocating for moderation. Absolutely. Yet it feels lately though the loudest voices that are getting the most attention are the ones pushing for the most...(searches for his words carefully)...aggrandizing forms of responding to disagreeable speech, and, when called on it-retreat back to very supercilious, academically-loaded terminology and tactics for why you're wrong and they're right. Then there's those people out there saying we need to be punching Nazi's but I aint touching that one with a ten-foot pole. because in order to moderate a platform it necessitates censoring opinions. This though, I'm not so sure about. I've never been fond of the trend of de-platforming disagreeable viewpoints or speech that aren't directly advocating and instructing 'imminent lawless action' as a certain high court puts it.

AlexB138 8y ago

Agreed, and if I came off as arguing otherwise I misspoke. What you can't be is for free speech and for "moderation" of only speech you disagree with, which is simply bias censorship and what is often happening.

fzeroracer 8y ago
The flaw with that is moderators and companies have to make a determination for speech they disagree with. Not all sites ban people in the same way for violent threats, and similarly all sites view inflammatory or derogatory speech in different ways. At some point in the equation there will be a value judgment made in terms of what breaks the rules. People banned by that moment will cite censorship and demand to be heard (see: the various subreddits banned by Reddit) while people wanting that content removed will celebrate. Making the argument into one purely about censorship ends up removing the nuance and reasoning for why someone was banned, which is why when people talk about conservative voices being banned by twitter, they often ignore the damage and harm Alex Jones for example has been responsible for to many families involved in school shootings or the various conspiracies he peddles.