This is bad, and the last paragraph is almost unintelligible: > YES, "freedom of speech" is essential, but as with almost everything else - extremes are bad. E

This is bad, and the last paragraph is almost unintelligible: > YES, "freedom of speech" is essential, but as with almost everything else - extremes are bad. Extremely bad. Extremes are relative to the speaker. Moderate is your opinion, extreme is the opinion of the guy you disagree with, and the "other" extreme is the guy who disagrees with both of you. > For now, it seems that 99% of discussions regarding free speech online are just about protecting the statements of individuals from our tribe that are heavily opposed & criticized by zealots of the opposing mob. The statements of people from one tribe being suppressed by people from another tribe who have the ability to suppress them, that's the entire subject of the discussion. If this is not happening, speech rights are in no danger. It's gaslighting to relegate all contemporary complaints about speech suppression as trivialities. And as compared to what? What's the real censorship? > I don't consider it productive and beneficial in any way. And it's definitely not about real freedom of expression. Would have been cool if you had written something to make an argument for this, because the rest of this page doesn't make any sort of specific case. It's just a series of weird assertions, concluding with this final claim. On what criteria are we to evaluate what you consider or don't consider productive or beneficial? And what's the "real freedom of expression?" Does it have anything to do with regular freedom of speech, or are you trying to pull a Jedi mind trick? Now it's not speech, but expression, and there are real freedoms and false freedoms? Why not detail this ontology rather than slip it in covertly? The weird problem is that we have young, ambitious technocrats trying to derive the infrastructure for perfect dictatorships (now I have to tag my factual claims, but politicians and media corporations can just lie freely; in fact, they're the ones responsible for the tagging.) They have no moral justification for this, and when they try, it's word salad. It's not their job to justify, it's to implement. They're not fantasizing about a world in which everyone can speak freely, and has access to accurate knowledge about the world. They're fantasizing about a world in which they can afford to buy a boat.