Ok, well, reading that I realize I "have different ideas than you" about that! Like I'm not sure that > The best you can do to prevent actual harm in the real

Ok, well, reading that I realize I "have different ideas than you" about that! Like I'm not sure that > The best you can do to prevent actual harm in the real world is allow unfettered speech and discussion. No-one likes fetters, so that way of framing it makes it sound a no-brainer. But, to give a real world example, I guess most people think HN would be much worse without moderation of any kind. I'm not sure how one would test the truth of your statement. It doesn't sound obviously true to me, at least. It sounds like you are 100% certain. What evidence would it take for you to change your mind? I suspect belief in such "free speech absolutism" comes from abstract principle first, with real-world evidence a very distant second. Seems a similar situation to, say, pacifism. I'm very anti-violence, anti-war etc, but I'm not a pure, idealist "pacifist". To say you'd never use violence, in any situation?! that non-violence is always worse - just sounds like you haven't thought so much about it. e.g. even if thugs were dragging off your loved ones? You wouldn't lift a finger? I doubt it. That would seem like your abstract principle was trumping prudence/evidence/reason etc, producing non-sensible results, in a similar way. I don't think there are simple and good answers to any of these questions. Yours is simple but, I think, not good.