> the idea that the only correct stance is yours and all moral, rational people will converge on it is ridiculous.
I never said that. Conversations exist to be had, good ideas should be promoted and bad ideas disproven and cast aside. Ideas should be considered and judged on their merits, even ones I don't agree with. There's certainly no requirement for any individual to engage.
Despite calling me out, there's irony inherent here in that you believe your stance is the only one that deserves to even be considered. Censoring those that do not believe as you do is the definition of believing you have the "only correct stance".
People do and should have the option to curtail speech in their spaces as they see fit. I choose to converse on platforms that limit my and other's speech minimally. That's not an endorsement of "nationalist or genocidal movements".
> Moderation of wide-reach public forums with the goal of preventing movements causing mass death and misery...
Claimed goals are always rosy until they aren't. Individuals habituated to not having to determine truth for themselves are ultimately doing themselves a disservice. That said, if people prefer platforms that censor certain content, then those platforms will thrive; that's fine and they have. I don't think though that information freedom is on most people's radars when they choose a social media platform. A lot of this legislation that requires mandated strict moderation will only work to entrench big players that can pay to do so.
I'm not a racist genocidal nationalist and I don't follow nor broadcast their content. I still don't want their existence in the public sphere to limit my expression. They're not that important and we shouldn't make them out to be.
> I still don't want their existence in the public sphere to limit my expression. They're not that important and we shouldn't make them out to be.
See this is the key thing and a conflict I pretty much expect and accept. I think they are important, on the metric of their body count over the last century. I'm willing to accept some limitations to public speech, both mine and yours, to reduce their power and risk in the future.
You don't accept that tradeoff, which I find a consistent and reasonable position that I also oppose. But your first comment did imply that it was the only valid position for reasonable people to have ("better stewards of their beliefs"). You may not have intended that meaning but it's the one I read.
I never said that. Conversations exist to be had, good ideas should be promoted and bad ideas disproven and cast aside. Ideas should be considered and judged on their merits, even ones I don't agree with. There's certainly no requirement for any individual to engage.
Despite calling me out, there's irony inherent here in that you believe your stance is the only one that deserves to even be considered. Censoring those that do not believe as you do is the definition of believing you have the "only correct stance".
People do and should have the option to curtail speech in their spaces as they see fit. I choose to converse on platforms that limit my and other's speech minimally. That's not an endorsement of "nationalist or genocidal movements".
> Moderation of wide-reach public forums with the goal of preventing movements causing mass death and misery...
Claimed goals are always rosy until they aren't. Individuals habituated to not having to determine truth for themselves are ultimately doing themselves a disservice. That said, if people prefer platforms that censor certain content, then those platforms will thrive; that's fine and they have. I don't think though that information freedom is on most people's radars when they choose a social media platform. A lot of this legislation that requires mandated strict moderation will only work to entrench big players that can pay to do so.
I'm not a racist genocidal nationalist and I don't follow nor broadcast their content. I still don't want their existence in the public sphere to limit my expression. They're not that important and we shouldn't make them out to be.