• EmperorHenry
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Supporting free speech means allowing people you hate to talk too. Censor a Nazi one day, then the next day it’s something your weird friend likes, then the next day it’s something you like.

    Everyone deserves a platform online, but they have to earn their audience. Censoring them is only going to make more people want to go to other platforms to hear and see what they have to say.

    • bedrooms
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s just common misconception. Free speech is there to protect people from the government, not business. If my anti-racism voice gets suppressed on Threads (assuming I ever make an account there) I’d just move to another platform.

      And really, there’s no good reason for a well-intended internet community to allow racism expand.

    • elscallr
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      It doesn’t mean you have to give them the platform, though. If they want to create their own Nazi federation that’s entirely on them, but you don’t have to integrate their content.

      • EmperorHenry
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If these companies are going to control what’s on their platform then they shouldn’t get a liability shield.

        They’re a bookstore censoring the content of the books they have in the store.

        If you don’t like what someone has to say online you don’t have to click on their profiles or follow them or read what they’re saying.

    • MiscreantMouseOP
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The right to free speech is drawn from a US constitutional amendment, which says the US government can’t censor speech, but it has nothing to do with private platforms like this, much less individual responses to Nazi rhetoric. Nobody owes hate speech a free platform.

      • EmperorHenry
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        But these private platforms have a liability shield. If they have a liability shield, they shouldn’t be allowed to censor things.

        • MiscreantMouseOP
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          they shouldn’t be allowed to censor things

          I disagree, and so does US law. Abusive material shouldn’t be spread just because it can be.

          • EmperorHenry
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            Illegal shit is already illegal. That’s not what I was talking about.

            • MiscreantMouseOP
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You missed the point, but whatever, you don’t get to force private platforms to host content, that’s up to the owners.