On the one hand they say platforms may exercise “their” free speech by moderating posts or banning people and that’s okay because it’s a private co. and not obliged to be platform for everyone.
Then on the other hand a different company also exercises its free speech (under their own argument) by not moderating posts and now that’s bad because some speech should be moderated and they disagree with those voices.
So like basically they’re for corporate free speech when they agree with the controls but are against it when they disagree with the results.
Just say it. We only want to allow our approved views — we don’t want free speech.
And not only that but they protest free speech but totally don’t walk out when they unscrupulously slurp up data on everyone.
1 - What do you win by allowing users to make direct and explicit death threats?
2 - What is your view with regard to the paradox of tolerance?
3 - Are you against all kind of moderation in forums/social networks?
Who made a credible direct and explicit threat?
That said. In person you can tell a threat better. Online it’s very hard to discern what’s what. On reddit otherwise nice people will say rather nasty things that they don’t actually mean and will not act on. It will take time, generations, for this to suss out. Psychologically it’s quite different.
2-
I am not a pacifist. But I think there is something to be learned from them. You have to believe that in the long run good arguments will win over poor ones. That said, in life nothing is sure.
3-
No, but I know there is no perfect answer or one that works in all circumstances. Yet, I feel that allowing political censorship is dangerous. All kinds of “isms” love controlling speech, especially political speech. It’s dangerous to find comfort in that corner.
Thanks for the answers.