Every state and institution in the world 'censors.
The BBC, ABC news, Fox News, the government, every corporation, Facebook, Twitter, Google.
Every single one.
Stop talking about this absolutist stuff - it's not helping the argument.
You, as an individual, can stand outside your home and say quite a lot of things before the cops will arrest you, but that doesn't mean there are not rules in the commons.
There are basic rules for civility in every institution, if you don't like them, start your own institution where you can press 'free speech' essentially to the legal maximum.
If someone tried to stop you from criticizing a politician, that would be an unnaceptable restriction but that's not happening.
If someone tried to stop you from telling your friends privately that you think COVID is fabricated by the Nazis, well, it' be bad because you have that right.
But don't have any inherent right to go on to some massive platform to tell Americans that you have evidence the COVID vaccine is killing people - if the owners of said platform don't want to let you on.
This point works against you, and actually supports the free speech advocates.
If you don't like facebook, and want to have a more censored platform, then leave and go make your own social media company.
But this whole thread is not about that. People do not want facebook to be allowed to support as much free speech as it is currently doing.
Why can't these pro censorship people just take their own advice? If they don't like free speech then feel free to make your own social media company.
My argument was the opposite - that if people want less censorship, because they don't agree with FB banning their version of 'hate speech' - then they can make their own website.
There are 0 common platforms that don't censor. They all do, all day long.
Do you realize how much content on there is not suitable for publication? Death threats, doxxing, harassment, using the n-word to refer to black people etc.
No civil platform is going to allow that - and most of them have a higher bar frankly.
The much more challenging question has to do with 'truthiness' - because if you make a post that says 'XYZ stole the election, here is the 'evidence' (and it's not evidence) and it gets 300 million views - the result being that 50% of a nation firmly believe the election was 'stolen' but by objective measures it clearly was not ... then you have a mass media problem.
The 'free speechers' might want to be inclined to allow that to pass, because there's nothing illegal about lying. But misinformation has material impact.
Issues of vaccination are a deep - we know that 'anti vaxxers' have had huge success on Social Media leading up to COVID, and now were are facing a public health emergency where we need probably 75% of the population to get the vaccine to reach 60% herd immunity or whatever - or the pandemic won't subside.
People spreading false fears and lies about vaccines - while probably totally within the scope of 'free speech' is going to create some very serious problems.
On the other side, Twitter has announced that 'deadnaming' a trans person will get you banned. Literally saying the name 'Ellen Page' (because it's now 'Elliot Page') is like hate speech. While I understand that 'deadnaming' is a very rude thing to do, I don't remotely think it's a form of 'hate speech'. The government of Quebec fined someone $30 000 for making a joke about a guy in a wheelchair. Again, really, really not nice, but should not be illegal, and probably should be allowed on Facebook or Twitter as well. That's why we have the 'unfollow' button.
If someone is threatening/doxxing/abusing Elliot Page a person in the wheelchair, probably greater steps need to be taken, but not otherwise.
All media is controlled. Always. Someone is always in charge, someone is controlling what information flows, and frankly it's usually biased, but most 'institutions' bend at least to the public good.
So you can say anything you want on your front lawn, and on your personal blog ... but once in the commons, different kinds of filtering will kick in.
But specifically this thread and whole article is about people wanting more censorship, on FB. Those people are the ones who can leave, and go make their own website. Everyone else, who supports free speech can stay on facebook.
Facebook has enabled significantly more free speech, and democratization of information. That is why people are upset in this thread, and this article. They are upset about how much free speech facebook has enabled.
> The 'free speechers' might want to be inclined to allow that to pass
The free speechers have already won. This is what people in this thread and article are complaining about. They are upset about how social media has allowed a lot more free speech, and has democratized speech and information to very large degrees.
If you don't like how much free speech is on the internet right now, then you are the one who is going to have to create your own website. Because the pro-censorship people are the ones who lost, and are currently very upset about the fact that they lost.
Thats the entire point of this article thread.... That people are upset about how much more free speech is available right now, and how much easier it is for people to spread ideas.
Those are the people who should leave and make their own platform that has less free speech, if they are upset.
It's been a year since the Halle attack, the attacker is a joke: a typical internet incel as you would picture him. Infantile, insecure, physically weak, clumsy with his firearms. It would be literally funny if not for the two people he killed. Sorry for them, but, should we really sacrifice basic freedoms and rights, being afraid of THIS GUY?