For me I would hold the social media companies more to account when it comes to hate speech and harassment online and force social media companies to do more to stop online harassment and hate speech.

    • darq@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      Is it the fault of the principle of free speech, or the legion of stupid people being allowed to talk freely?

      I’m not talking about “the principal of free speech”. I’m pushing back on the foolish assertion that moderation leads to echo chambers for lazy and dull minds. When exactly the opposite is true.

      I’m saying that if you want to hear diverse opinions, a free-for-all is a bad idea. Because that free-for-all leads to echo chambers.

      You probably want restrictions because it would never apply to you. Denying you talking about stuff that doesn’t phase you, is easy.

      No no, don’t make stupid assumptions about me so that you don’t have to confront my point.

      What if that platform bans opinions that you happen to have?

      Most of them do. Your assumptions are wrong.

      Sure, if you point at 4chan or similar…free speech attracts shitnuggets and end up being an echo chamber. But that’s the fault of us humans being crap, and not free speech being inherently bad.

      I never said free speech was inherently bad. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you imagined that I wrote.

        • darq@kbin.social
          2·
          1 year ago

          But how can I hear “diverse opinion” if X opinions are banned/blocked/moderated in the first place?

          There is no space where all opinions are welcome. It simply does not exist. Some opinions are going to force out others.

          If you run a space where Nazi opinions are okay to speak, you can’t really expect to hear Jewish opinions. Or opinions of PoC or queer people or disabled people and so on and so on.

          So most places do the calculations. You can ban this one view. And in return an entire spectrum of views becomes more welcome.

          Bigotry is a painfully simple, painfully shallow, and painfully boring viewpoint. It is almost completely one-dimensional, simplifiable to the idea that the “other” is inferior or dangerous and is to be shunned or feared. It is a viewpoint that we all already know, one we have all already heard. Banning it loses us almost nothing, and in return we gain so, so many more valuable insights.

          • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
            1·
            1 year ago

            I have no idea where you are to receive such things. I never did, and I’m on the net since it started.

            • Martin Kelly@infosec.exchange
              0·
              1 year ago

              @Dyskolos no. i’m pointing out that your argument is dishonest. nothing is stopping you hearing diverse opinions. you are arguing for nowhere to be able to have their own standards which is a separate, harder lift than “fReAzE PeAcH!?!”

              • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
                1·
                1 year ago

                Did you forgot what the initial post was I replied to? That censoring hate-speech IS cancel-culture. But you referring me to some nazi-forums (I assume they are considering the title) because I’m for free speech? Not even considering how restrictive Nazis usually are, you can’t even be non-white to speak. Totally makes sense. Not. I’m for free speech since the internet was born. If you’re really not 12 you might remember the ribbon-banners later on. It just died. Free speech is dead. We’re even at a point where billionaires buy a platform that spreads shit they don’t like and change it.

                • Martin Kelly@infosec.exchange
                  01·
                  1 year ago

                  @Dyskolos no. i’m referring you to stormfront because it’s both the trivial and irrefutable rebuttal to your nonsense argument, and because it’s funny. i do recall the original post. i also recall your last post. i mention this only because apparently you don’t as you keep on being confused by my addressing it