I made a litmus test that an alarming number of people I've had recent discussions with cannot pass.

Basically it's about whether you can get them to agree with both of the following statements:

1) X-ism should not exist. 2) X-ists have a fundamental right to exist.

Point number one is perfectly reasonable as should be point two. The really scary authoritarians flat out deny point number two, but most people will start equivocating or scream at you because you don't want to punch X-ists.

This is a growing problem that society needs to find a solution to quickly. Denial of point 2 leads to mass murder of people for thought crime. Still some people seem okay with this.

And I just want to point out before I get tons of hate that it's perfectly acceptable to give X-ists consequences for their _actions_. Not their private thoughts.

>Denial of point 2 leads to mass murder of people for thought crime. Still some people seem okay with this.

You're exaggerating. We don't have a real problem with people who want to mass murder people for being X-ists. It's easy to observe the inverse, though.

Large numbers of people saying that a group of people don't have a fundamental right to exist is literally the same thing as X-ism.

The terrorists who stormed the capitol are nobody's mere "political opponents". They are hateful, violent cowards together with some innocent non-violent people tricked by propaganda, the former of whom hide behind the broader identity of conservative or Republican, precisely so that people can defend them under that umbrella as you have done. You shouldn't be helping them.

Iraq seems a little different to an armed invasion of.. the capitol building. No?

One day, people may actually need to invade the Capitol building, but it will never happen because of your eagerness to create an authoritarian state that shuts down all controversial discourse.

If we deplatformed every “violent thug” that did something people didn’t like, you would have a fraction of the rights you have today.

I believe that we passed a controversial discourse, when a certain group of people decided to ignore all reasonable arguments, to ignore sience.

This is not about shutting down all controversial discourse. It is about "defend[ing] a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant". Surpression shall only happen if there is no other way to defend a tolerant society cause the intolerant are working with (massiv, wide spread) violence.

I don't know who is in the position to decide when that point has come. But one could argue that people invading the capitol is that point.(I don't think so)

What I am really worried about, is that it seems like tech companies will have to make those decisions. In the end there will be individual persons, who make that decisons and that is very dangerous.

But how do you know who is a 'freedom fighter' and who is a 'terrorist' then? Do you let google and facebook decide?

Look, an "Anti soviet warrior", "on the road to peace" - https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-abo...

As I already wrote: That's exactly what I am worried about. I do believe that tech-companies are not the right instance to make those decisions.

But: There is noone else, who is able to control the growing beast of social networks that they created. And in parts they can not control it either. There are too many languages used, that no employee or AI understands.

In the end we are darned to watch and hope they make the correct decisions.

> Do you let google and facebook decide?

Google and Facebook should host whichever legal content they'd like, and we should build alternative systems that give us control over how we spend our attention and share our influence.

Worth pointing out that innocent people were shot and killed and senators were evacuated while they confirmed the election result. It isn't "something I don't like" it is "something reprehensible which cannot under any circumstances be tolerated".