4 ms·

> Our tools of communication absolutely effect our thinking. A tool of mass communication effects or collective thinking. This is why the line for protected spe

> Our tools of communication absolutely effect our thinking. A tool of mass communication effects or collective thinking. This is why the line for protected speech is such a challenging topic. The only challege is that you don't want to allow speech you disagree with. If speech were not an effective tool to steer our collective thinking, we would not have a first amendment. Banning extremist content is the road to serfdom. What's extreme to one half of the country is common sense to the other half.

mind-blight 4y ago
> The only challege is that you don't want to allow speech you disagree with. I'm absolutely for speech I disagree with our find offensive. That's how our culture evolves, how new ideas are tested and either adopted or discarded. I'm adamantly opposed to speech that is a call for or a deliberate incitement of violence. > Banning extremist content is the road to serfdom Let's be clear about what we mean by extremism, because blanket statements like this lack any nuance and are incongruent with how any government or institution had interpreted free speech. Is banning spam the road to serfdom? Is banning direct calls to violence the road to serfdom? Is preventing doxxing our revenge porn? Extremist content is only concerning when it results in real-world violence. At that point, I am unable to opt out (i.e. not visit the site) and therefore am forced to have an opinion and react. And, to be clear, there is a big difference between an extremely unpopular ideology and a call to violence for that ideology