3 ms·
> Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out. History sorted these things, alright, but outcomes weren't as harmless as som
by manuelabeledo 5y ago
> Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out.
History sorted these things, alright, but outcomes weren't as harmless as some people tend to believe.
In other words, how much value do you put in freedom of speech when human lives are in the line? E.g. shouldn't facebook have done something about the Rohingya genocide?
- exabrial 5y agoFacebook is a private platform.
- manuelabeledo 5y agoMy point here is that history actually taught us that freedoms come with attachments. I mentioned Facebook because it enabled the government of Myanmar during the persecution and genocide of the Rohingya people. They could have done something, but chose to ignore it and do nothing. This is not a unique occurrence either. Freedom of speech without observing any moral or ethical consequences doesn't make you free, it makes you a libertine, and those who choose to enable these behaviours aren't innocent either. On top of it, in this scenario, Russia is waging an information war against the West, so why should we grant them the freedom to do so?