If only that. Take the well-known case of a woman who overheard a private joke between two men on a programming conference and posted an outraged message to social media, which promptly got one of the men fired.

It's not the person who got hurt that "leveraged modern technology to broadcast that opinion to as many people as possible" - it's the other person, the one who overheard stuff and got offended. This is why many start to feel afraid voicing their opinions - because even if you try to keep it to a small group of your friends, there's no telling when someone decides to rebroadcast it publicly on the Internet, and then all hell breaks loose.

There's a lack of proportionality to the "system" you describe.

Someone with a dozen twitter followers, all friends and family, who has no intent to "broadcast to as many people as possible" but just to comment to acquaintances, can say something juuuust a little bit ignorant and, if they happen to get noticed by an "influencer", suddenly have thousands of angry replies, calls to their employer, death threats, etc. They might not have even been broadcasting on twitter, but might have told a joke to a friend in a public place, perhaps even a joke that was misunderstood or misheard by someone listening in, and then suddenly find themselves in the middle of a storm. And it's not typically a storm of people correcting mistaken ideas or helping them reason through errors, but a storm of people seeking vengeance -- not "hey man, that thing you just said is demeaning and wrong", but "you're a bad person and you should be cast out of society".

That is not "the system working as intended" (well, maybe it is in some peoples' minds, but if so it's a terrible system!) That's not a system that fixes ignorance; that's a system that creates a black market for unpopular opinions and that creates fear and resentment.

> Naturally, people who disagree will respond... the system is working as intended.

Interesting elision. Will you expand upon it?

That's free-speech. Person A freely makes a statement and anyone else can freely respond to it. That's the ideal that everyone envisions and it's also the reality on the ground.

Er...not really, no. Some speech is freer than others. I already posted the link earlier, but here it goes again:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-beg...

I read the link. Please elaborate on how this demonstrates that "some speech is freer than others"?

Creating an environment in which some people are justifiably afraid to speak, for fear not of counterargument but of very substantial punishment merely for dissenting from, or even seeking more clearly to understand, the permissible range of opinion, seems like a pretty clear problem to me. No doubt some feel otherwise.

> Creating an environment in which some people are justifiably afraid to speak

Those who you are appearing to condemn would just as easily use the language of "justifiably afraid to speak" in the context of their own political issues, but I am guessing you would disagree with their particular justifications, yet the implication you seem to be making is that they are "more free" to speak, even though both sides are equally capable.

The particular topic is irrelevant, there is certainly a venue in which any opinion would antagonize a particular crowd of close-minded ideologues, but just because a certain group of people are closed-off to certain types of ideas, doesn't mean you are any less free to speak them.

Imagine Obama giving a speech to a crowd of Trump supporters.

Imagine Trump giving a speech to a crowd of Obama supporters.

Both sides would claim "they screamed our guy down and didn't even give him a chance to speak, the [right/left] are killing free speech"... well, they'd both be wrong because freedom to speak doesn't mean everyone will agree, and if you broadcast an unpopular opinion in the wrong crowd, you get an angry mob; this doesn't mean your freedom is being trampled on, because there are plenty of places you can go to speak your ideas where everyone will clap and cheer and exclaim how enlightened you for sharing the clearly-correct-opinion regarding topic x.

It's a bit of a stretch, I think, to equate an intellectually chilly or even hostile reception, on the one hand, with professional blackballing over mere opinions, and in one case that comes to mind an attempt to incite multiple criminal investigations over a piece of satire, on the other.

I don't imagine that either side in the current political conflict would in general be any more virtuous than the other, given power. The thing about power is that, having it, one is tempted to use it. But it would be foolish to ignore the fact that, in the current political conflict, one side by and large does have power, and is less shy daily in wielding it.

Some believe the proper solution to this is to wrest that power away from those who now hold it, the better to wield it and say, well, they hit us first. I understand the appeal, but disagree with the goal; I would rather see a modus vivendi which enables both sides of the political divide to live more or less in peace with one another, ideally without the sort of constant incitement that goes on today. Such behavior seems probable by trivial extrapolation to take us all to a place where nearly none of us wants to go, and even most of those few who think they think otherwise will drown in horror and regret.

Ignoring reality doesn't seem likely to advance such a goal, but on the other hand, there's little evidence to suggest that is a goal which many are likely to share.