4 ms·

Until recently I thought we already settled this: -People you believe are saying true things get to speak. -People you believe are saying false things get to

• umvi 5y ago
  That was until we collectively decided harm reduction is a greater cause than freedom preservation. Now any and all freedoms we previously had can be temporarily, permanently, or conditionally suspended in the name of harm reduction (saved lives, fewer offended, etc.)
  • owisd 5y ago
    It’s not some recent idea that freedoms need to be balanced against the harm they can cause others. The harm principle has been around at least as long as On Liberty (1859), and it wasn’t really a new idea then.
• jayd16 5y ago
  This is not what is currently up for debate. The current conflict is over control of private forums. Its not a cut and dry issue either. If you were to own a site, anyone forcing you to post things to your site you don't believe is also an infringement of your rights. It cuts both ways. In my eyes the major issue is the consolidation of discourse onto a few private forums, not whether or not those forums should be able to police themselves.
• another_story 5y ago
  While this is great in principle, some people's voice is much louder, and their words can devastate the lives of individuals, the economy and our society. Should there not be something in place to prevent people from spreading falsehoods that can lead to harming others? The solution is not as easy as what you've stated. In fact, I don't think there is a solution, only a continual rebalancing.