zlacker

>>nicola+(OP)
I've noticed that all the online spaces I enjoy visiting are heavily moderated. Whenever I get linked to "free speech" loosely-moderated platforms, I usually hit the back button pretty quick.

>>optima+t7
Do you seek the truth unconditionally, or only truth that fits within your pre-conceived notions of acceptability? Can you imagine a society where an objective truth was unacceptable, and denial of that truth was harmful to themselves or others?

>>jl2718+xa
To be frank, often when I see this glossy pamphlet cover for free speech, you open up the pamphlet and see a bunch of child porn, antisemitism and/or racism.

The issue with free speech platforms is they attract a crowd of people whose only narrative is one that can't be said in other places. It isn't a narrative of truth, it is one of hate and bigotry.

I've seen few examples where objective truth is banned. I have, however, seen a lot of Nazis get banned.

>>cogman+2c
That’s just a flaw in your brain’s logical processing.

I’ve seen this again and again, people will see an ocean of normal content anywhere free speech is allowed and laser-focus on the single floating turd.

They’ll then mischaracterize the entire ocean as the turd, it’s like they have no sense of proportionality.

>>zionic+Cl
> people will see an ocean of normal content anywhere free speech is allowed

Not sure I agree on this one. Forums like /r/conservative, patriots.win, and Gab claim to be in favor of "free speech," but dissenters quickly get banned. 4chan comes to mind — people do indeed post things of all political slants there, and the only moderation seems to be removing obviously unlawful content. And yet 4chan is almost decidedly covered in turds.