> After years of debate and experiment, even a few free-speech advocates argue that, while tricky, if done well it "actually enables more free speech", in t

> After years of debate and experiment, even a few free-speech advocates argue that, while tricky, if done well it "actually enables more free speech", in the words of Mike Masnick of Techdirt, a blog. "What content moderation does," he recently wrote, "is create spaces where more people can feel free to talk." This interesting argument played out in the comments to this recent piece on Cheapskates [1]. I think this modern debate is about to slip on the old banana skin that Bentham, Mill, and other philosophers laid down in the 18th Century - the difference between positive (enabling freedoms to) and negative (protective freedoms from) kinds of freedom. Perhaps we're going to need a better vocabulary to move forward. At least enough to separate the content (controversial subject) of speech from the intent (abuse/bullying). Practical absolutism might need to champion the former by fighting the latter. [1] https://cheapskatesguide.org/articles/not-enough-free-speech.html https://cheapskatesguide.org/articles/not-enough-free-speech...