3 ms·

> ...some group of people are afraid to speak... What you are describing is called a "hugbox", aka: safe-space. Any platform that actually catered to every neu

> ...some group of people are afraid to speak... What you are describing is called a "hugbox", aka: safe-space. Any platform that actually catered to every neurosis would be totally silent. > ...cancel culture is what you get (amongst other things) when there is no "moderation". I wonder how much thought you've actually put into that opinion. Because, for example, Twitter was very aggressively "moderated" and is also the birthplace of what most would characterize as "cancel culture". With such a counterexample I don't know how such a claim could be made with a straight face.

cauch 4y ago
> Any platform that actually catered to every neurosis would be totally silent. Well, it's a false dilemma: you don't need to have either a law that force all moderation to be identical everywhere or having places that are absolute safe-space. As long as you have some place that guarantee some opinions safe space, where is the problem? The hypocrisy is that the neurosis of someone is the freedom of speech of another. Bigotry, racism, sexism, ... are arguably as legitimately a neurosis as "woke culture". Yet, anti-cancel-culture people are often promoting solutions where, in practice, we force everywhere to be a safe-space for those anti-woke "neurosis". > With such a counterexample I don't know how such a claim could be made with a straight face. You are failing at logic. "what happens if you don't have a place well moderated" does not imply "if a place moderated exists, it cannot happen". Twitter was not "well" moderated, because it allowed cancel culture. It was heavily moderated, which does not mean it was well moderated. In fact, I even think that "well moderated" is rather impossible (you notice the quote-marks around the word moderation in the quote you've used, right?). The best we can have is "diversity of moderation", with several instance that have different moderation rules. Absolute freedom of speech is a concept that just takes water quickly when you think about it with intellectual honesty.

cauch 4y ago

> Any platform that actually catered to every neurosis would be totally silent. Well, it's a false dilemma: you don't need to have either a law that force all moderation to be identical everywhere or having places that are absolute safe-space. As long as you have some place that guarantee some opinions safe space, where is the problem? The hypocrisy is that the neurosis of someone is the freedom of speech of another. Bigotry, racism, sexism, ... are arguably as legitimately a neurosis as "woke culture". Yet, anti-cancel-culture people are often promoting solutions where, in practice, we force everywhere to be a safe-space for those anti-woke "neurosis". > With such a counterexample I don't know how such a claim could be made with a straight face. You are failing at logic. "what happens if you don't have a place well moderated" does not imply "if a place moderated exists, it cannot happen". Twitter was not "well" moderated, because it allowed cancel culture. It was heavily moderated, which does not mean it was well moderated. In fact, I even think that "well moderated" is rather impossible (you notice the quote-marks around the word moderation in the quote you've used, right?). The best we can have is "diversity of moderation", with several instance that have different moderation rules. Absolute freedom of speech is a concept that just takes water quickly when you think about it with intellectual honesty.