It may be me in the future. In fact, it's already happened to me before! I've been banned from a few forums and IRC channels in my day. The people there didn't like what I had to say. Am I angry? No. Because I've also run my own forums, and relied on the ability to ban and moderate comments in order to maintain a useful discussion.

But wait, Facebook isn't the same a forum, right? Well, it is, it's just bigger. Way bigger. The problem is how big it is. And how, in some countries, it's the only game in town (Facebook Basics).

It may seem like Facebook is overly moderated, but given it's size, it's really the opposite. It's a big free for all where hatred, deliberate misinformation, and calls to violence happen all the time. (Example: Myanmar). If you post that stuff on HN, it will quickly get taken down. But Facebook is slow to moderate anything, their moderation system is opaque, and thus hate speech is allowed to fester.

But not just fester. Facebook actually amplifies it. They see the engagement it gets and push it out to more people. So Facebook is not only negligent in their moderation, they are actively promoting toxic behavior. So long for Facebook being a "neutral platform."

Acting like the bans are the problem is the wrong idea. Moderation is important to any internet community, including this one. But when you get banned from a place, it shouldn't amount to not having a voice at all. Facebook is destroying the public square by maintaining a monopoly on internet communication. We should work to break them up, regulate them, or encourage people to leave the site.

I think many people do realise it, and feel like it's a worthwhile risk. The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now. And also, I may end up censored anyway for other reasons. Tolerating Milo et al. isn't really a bulwark protecting me.

> The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now.

What damage? Be specific. I think censoring people should require a considerable specificity as to their "crimes" before they're exiled.

Others have gotten into this with you about the specific damage, and my point was less "yay, censor them!" than the argument that not deplatforming them somehow protects me. It doesn't, even hypothetically.

Arguably censoring them does expose you to something worse: it establishes a bureaucracy and social norms that are perfectly fine with crushing unpopular and diverse opinions. It's a simple tyranny of the majority.

Sure, you consider this speech abhorrent, but switch the scenario around and consider how enforcing these types of norms stalled real social progress in the past: gay rights, women's rights, rights for visible minorities. You're dreaming if you don't think these new norms won't be applied against you.

So I disagree, not deplatforming does protect you.

We already have the bureaucracy and social norms and the tyranny of the majority. We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect to freedom of expression.

What this banning does is move the border between acceptable and unacceptable. You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier.

"Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll legalize polygamy. Alcohol was made illegal and then legalized again. It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and maybe change our minds later.

And among the factors stalling social progress on issues like gay rights and women's rights, I don't believe censorship was the biggest or even a significant factor, compared to all the others.

> We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect to freedom of expression.

Agreed. But we've largely only supported censoring speech that's incitement to violence, because anything beyond that seems to result in untenable legal duties.

Furthermore, one main point of protecting free speech rights is to protect the minority against the majority. Classifying that minority as ethically abhorrent is irrelevant. While democracy is a tyranny of the majority, we recognize fundamental, inalienable rights to check that tyranny.

> You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier.

That's one argument but not nearly the only one. Another is that there currently exists no rigourous criteria by which to classify the speech that people are looking to censor, so a) every case will be decided inconsistently by people who have no training in adjudicating what should be a philosophical or legal matter, and b) it will sweep up a lot of innocent people and stifle important political debate (which has already happened).

There are plenty more arguments, some of which I've elaborated on here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584

> "Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll legalize polygamy

Except there are non-fallacious slippery slopes. Gay marriage and polygamy have no factual basis in common, so there is no slope down which we can slip. That's why invoking the slippery slope is a fallacy in this case.

Now consider instead legalizing bestiality specifically with, say, dogs. Why only dogs? There is no non-fallacious, factual basis for why bestiality with horses should not also be legal if you're going to allow dogs. This is a non-fallacious slippery slope.

So you're asserting that the arguments I've presented are fallacious without actually pointing out the absence of a factual basis. As for asserting my factual basis, I can point out how Twitter and Facebook have already banned controversial politicians, thus effectively meddling in elections. I can also point to recent Supreme Court precedent that established that social media is a public square, and thus that First Amendment protections apply against. I can also point out how that actual studies on online radicalization failed to find any basis for the idea that online echo chambers and hate speech alone actually led to radicalization and violence, so the entire premise for the push to censor this speech is itself fallacious.

So then what are we left with? What justification is there to censor these people? We're left only with mob rule and capitalist motives in appeasing advertisers. These are emphatically not compelling reasons to establish these new and dangerous norms.

> It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and maybe change our minds later.

Or we could apply a bit of foresight and understanding of history and avoid the problems altogether. The fact that censorship of this sort can and has influenced elections means that we quite literally may not be able to change our minds later.

The far right are only pro-free speech for as long as it benefits them. Historically, whenever they or similar authoritarians have taken power, basic right such as free speech and the right to assemble are the very first things to be restricted.

They are hypocrites in the extreme. They only want free speech for themselves, and no one else.

Far right is a dog whistle. It doesn’t really mean anything. E.g criticise the immigration policy, you will be labelled far right by some of the rags that are still somehow trading.

As for whether free speech benefits those in the far right. Sure maybe it does but it also benefits everybody.

> I wonder if facebook was around in the 1950s would they be banning prominent homosexuals?

Of course they would. There's even a bit of that happening today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/03/faceboo...

And this is before we get into the question of malicious application of the "real names" policy to trams people.