3 ms·
I also reject platonism. I really don't mean to imply changing these norms was easy, or is only a matter of putting the information out there disregarding mater
by aantthony 6y ago
I also reject platonism. I really don't mean to imply changing these norms was easy, or is only a matter of putting the information out there disregarding material conditions and then just hoping for the best.
It seems that having free speech is a necessary, although not sufficient, condition to improve society. It's a principle worth defending.
- james-mcelwain 6y agoI think that framing ("necessary but not sufficient") is a much more productive way that I wish free speech advocates would use more. My opposition to censorship derives from the fact that it tends to require an unjustified hierarchy (i.e. the violence of the state). However, I have a real problem with imparting some kind of magical quality to ideas. I'm particularly annoyed by the way in which free speech advocates act like social norms are a form of censorship. More specifically, that free speech requires platforming -- i.e., rejecting a freedom of association. While I do think that the power companies like Google exert of society is well wroth investigating, in general I find that these are much weaker examples of the use of force to censor ideas.