5 ms·

I'm not sure that free-speech-as-moral-principle applies to platforming speech vs. not platforming speech. Everyone is free to say and think and express themsel

I'm not sure that free-speech-as-moral-principle applies to platforming speech vs. not platforming speech. Everyone is free to say and think and express themselves as they want to, and this seems totally separate from a right to reach millions via the work of others.

humanrebar 6y ago
Sure, but you're selling something other than a platform for open interaction and discussion at that point, right?
- dontreact 6y ago
  If you allow trolls and nazis to take over an online space, it scares people away and is no longer a place for open interaction
strken 6y ago
Like all moral principles, everyone interprets it differently, and your interpretation probably differs from my interpretation. My personal belief about why free speech should exist is that it helps us discover the truth, both morally and factually. As such, I think we should make spaces accessible that allow any idea to be discussed, even the ones we currently think are wrong, and if we limit speech we should do it such that no idea is rendered inexpressible. However, I understand that not every space should be a complete free-for-all, and I have no problem with limiting the way in which an idea can be presented to ensure politeness or harmlessness. Within the scope of this belief, I find it obviously okay to deplatform speech up until doing so harms our overall ability to discover the truth. Past that point a tradeoff exists. I think that the removal of Parler is a tradeoff between the free speech of its users, vs the self-determination of Google, the potential harm done by Parler, and the existence of other spaces where ideas can still be discussed. While I therefore find removing Parler to be acceptable, I still feel that the moral principle of free speech must be applied to that decision, even if it's outweighed by other factors.
- dontreact 6y ago
  To me it sounds like you are cleanly separating 1. The moral principle of what should be platformed (which you agree is not everything) 2. The moral principle of free speech (which is what is in the constitution preventing the government from preventing freedom of expression)

humanrebar 6y ago

Sure, but you're selling something other than a platform for open interaction and discussion at that point, right?

dontreact 6y ago
If you allow trolls and nazis to take over an online space, it scares people away and is no longer a place for open interaction

strken 6y ago

Like all moral principles, everyone interprets it differently, and your interpretation probably differs from my interpretation. My personal belief about why free speech should exist is that it helps us discover the truth, both morally and factually. As such, I think we should make spaces accessible that allow any idea to be discussed, even the ones we currently think are wrong, and if we limit speech we should do it such that no idea is rendered inexpressible. However, I understand that not every space should be a complete free-for-all, and I have no problem with limiting the way in which an idea can be presented to ensure politeness or harmlessness. Within the scope of this belief, I find it obviously okay to deplatform speech up until doing so harms our overall ability to discover the truth. Past that point a tradeoff exists. I think that the removal of Parler is a tradeoff between the free speech of its users, vs the self-determination of Google, the potential harm done by Parler, and the existence of other spaces where ideas can still be discussed. While I therefore find removing Parler to be acceptable, I still feel that the moral principle of free speech must be applied to that decision, even if it's outweighed by other factors.

dontreact 6y ago
To me it sounds like you are cleanly separating 1. The moral principle of what should be platformed (which you agree is not everything) 2. The moral principle of free speech (which is what is in the constitution preventing the government from preventing freedom of expression)