> "I think this is for the best, however it always leads to problems" Well to be fair, I did say I was torn on this and have no answers :) The concept of "the

> "I think this is for the best, however it always leads to problems" Well to be fair, I did say I was torn on this and have no answers :) The concept of "the solution to bad speech, being more speech" is somewhat of a safe default to me. All things being equal, I think it's more important to err on the side of protecting the voices of those who should and need to be heard, while accepting the risk that these very protections may also inadvertently benefit "extremists" in that they too are more likely to be heard. I prefer this balance, as opposed to the opposite, of strict moderation. Silencing the voices of those with something important to say, in order to ensure that we don't let any extremists get their views out. So that's my default starting position. But I'm not absolutist about it. I think we can't be too binary about it, at either end of the spectrum. The answer is not one of two choices, "100% no free speech" or "100% free speech". Instead, it's presumably somewhere in the middle. So the answer is probably, "light touch, just enough moderation, based on some form of consensus". How you define "just enough" is a tough problem. Perhaps it's the consensus part that's missing at the moment.