> it has also brought out the worst in people I had liked his other article, the one he linked there about the spying app. Showed an ethical baseline of concer

> it has also brought out the worst in people I had liked his other article, the one he linked there about the spying app. Showed an ethical baseline of concern for the users that every developer should have, in my opinion. But this, this is not a result of any sort of concern for any user. This article was written clearly out of a self-righteous desire of the author to declare his own morality, and the result is that he ends up looking like he would be okay with controlling the users of whatever he builds. So, as usual for people who make that claim I quoted, he fails to see how his own approach has clearly made him an example of his own words. > [Unrestricted speech in the internet is worse than] criminal activities, terrorism and child pornography Not a good start if the first implication is "online agitators" belonging to the fringe and extremes are somehow worse than actual crimes. They aren't. > All these extreme ideas have divided societies and increased social tensions. And they’re responsible for a number of acts of terrorism which caused the death of too many people. This is pretty damning, in that those extreme believes he listed before this are far from the only ideas increasing tensions and leading to terrorism. The more one reads, the more obvious it becomes—as seemingly always happens with defenses of censorship—that his problem is not so much with "unfiltered speech in the internet", but unfiltered speech in the internet that he disagrees with. > It won’t be because of my help. And here I feel lies the root of the problem, at least in its modern form, and what often causes good intentions to pave the road to hell nowadays: Some people are no longer content with merely having "opinions"; they need to have "stances" now.