The “it hurts me” argument is a very-very obvious red herring. If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive. Tha

The “it hurts me” argument is a very-very obvious red herring. If just saying “let’s kill xy” is not okay, then somebody already decides what is offensive. That somebody is for example the judges. The question always whether restricting something is beneficial to the population in general, or not. Spreading distractions to real issues is absolutely not beneficial. This video, and comment does exactly that. The real problem is what we do with this non beneficial behaviour for example. The absolutist viewpoint of freedom of speech, thinks that everybody can decide on their own what’s good for them. That’s obviously not true, we know countless examples of that. We just need to restrict access to real information, which happens currently to most of the people everywhere. Fortunately, the general population is not stupid, but we don’t have enough time/attention to details (I think). So we just needs to be sure, that everybody can get the real stuff in their own limited time. The problem is, you cannot achieve this without control, and probably, restricting others freedom of speech, because otherwise they can fill that “limited time”. Another obvious problem is what is the “real stuff”. One interesting idea is to restrict the amount of content which can be created per day, for example. The content still could be quite free. Obviously, these won’t be achieved in a free market, and I’m absolutely not sure that there won’t be new ways to break the system. What we can see today, is another idea, the context bubbles next to obvious lies, but this also have issues regarding deciding what’s true.