3 ms·

Societal attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. I believe this is related to technological advancement and the rise of social media.

Societal attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. I believe this is related to technological advancement and the rise of social media. The advent of social media has made it too easy to spread dangerous levels of hate and false information online. Malicious individuals and groups now have the power to reach hundreds of millions instantly, at no cost to themselves. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to YouTube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, adversarial nations were spreading fake news to influence who gets elected, and others were even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in attitudes towards free speech. Enough is enough! There needs to be limits. Communities started imposing limits to free speech. Society — as opposed to governments — have decided that some censorship is in order. This is a natural evolution of societal norms. This particular evolution was a reaction to the excesses and abuses seen in social media. Some censorship, by private parties such as Twitter, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal. We live in a new world; the old norms no longer apply.

colordrops 6y ago
The idea that speech should have limits was driven by the same think tanks that spread the lies and propaganda on social media. You are being played on both sides. The establishment is threatened by free speech since it is now accessible to everyone so they are painting it as dangerous.
djsumdog 6y ago
So these individuals are malicious and misleading, but what you believe is pure and good and right and holy? How do you know you're not the one being deceived or are believing a lie? The freedom of speech allows people to talk about things that might be true, but unpopular. > have decided that some censorship is in order Freedom of speech is not absolute. It doesn't include images of child abuse, lying to Federal Agents, lying under oath before a Court or Congress, or speech that advocates for immediate and imminent harm of a person. Those seem like decent limit breaks. Americas freedom of speech is very strong, stronger than German, Australia, the UK, NZ .. the US and Japan probably have the strongest free speech laws in the world (although Japan's is crippled by insane copyright law, which is another mess). People who are on the wrong side of history, rarely know or realize it, while they're in it. Free speech is about acknowledging someone else could be right and you might be wrong.

colordrops 6y ago

The idea that speech should have limits was driven by the same think tanks that spread the lies and propaganda on social media. You are being played on both sides. The establishment is threatened by free speech since it is now accessible to everyone so they are painting it as dangerous.

djsumdog 6y ago

So these individuals are malicious and misleading, but what you believe is pure and good and right and holy? How do you know you're not the one being deceived or are believing a lie? The freedom of speech allows people to talk about things that might be true, but unpopular. > have decided that some censorship is in order Freedom of speech is not absolute. It doesn't include images of child abuse, lying to Federal Agents, lying under oath before a Court or Congress, or speech that advocates for immediate and imminent harm of a person. Those seem like decent limit breaks. Americas freedom of speech is very strong, stronger than German, Australia, the UK, NZ .. the US and Japan probably have the strongest free speech laws in the world (although Japan's is crippled by insane copyright law, which is another mess). People who are on the wrong side of history, rarely know or realize it, while they're in it. Free speech is about acknowledging someone else could be right and you might be wrong.