4 ms·

You seem to be arguing yourself in a circle.

• Latty 5y ago
  Would you care to expand? I think my point is sound and relatively simple: deplatforming isn't the problem, the lack of a public square is. Deplatforming is, in itself, a form of protected expression.
  • DarylZero 5y ago
    If the prohibition of deplatforming is why we need a public square, it does sound inconsistent to say deplatforming isn't the problem. "The problem isn't deplatforming -- it's the lack of places where deplatforming is prohibited."
    • Latty 5y ago
      How is that inconsistent? Just because it's good to have access to something doesn't mean we want it everywhere. This goes for a lot of things. It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. It is important that there are places you can't be censored, but that doesn't mean every place should be forced to be unfiltered firehoses. Curation has value. Should every newspaper be forced to platform anyone who sends them an article? Enforced speech is just as harmful as prohibited speech. People should have the right to choose who they platform.
      • DarylZero 5y ago
        Whether "we want it everywhere" and whether "it is the problem" are different questions. > It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. If you couldn't urinate anywhere legally, you wouldn't consider the laws against urination a problem?
        • Latty 5y ago
          I wouldn't advocate for laws against urination being "extinct", as the post I replied to did with de-platforming, no. I'd push for toilets, not the ability to piss in the street.