What about death threats? What about organizing a lynch mob? What about someone else posting your personal info and browser history? What about extortion attempts? What about copies of anything you've ever written?

And we can't just draw the line here when considering the ramifications of absolute free speech. Basically everything that involves human art of creativity is free speech. If that's absolute then any depths of depravity is free. One could fake horrible, violent, traumatizing acts being performed by people on other people and then claim it is in fact those people, spread it on billboards and across from schools, and that's all under the purview of free speech.

> My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that.

That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual.

What is "the community's right to shut somebody up"? If a country elects a dictator, it is fine if that dictator then shuts people up?

Mastodon (afaik) already has the feature that communities can decide what outside content can enter their servers. What is the point on making it impossible for others to use the software at all? It doesn't server the purpose of protecting that community from nasty speech, because that is already accomplished by not communicating with the evil servers.

If the dictator is democratically elected, well, kind of yes. Plus you've already lost.

The real protection against abuse by the majority is generally through constitutions. Plus having a well educated populace.

> > My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that.

>That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual.

I completely disagree. The individual's right to speak is greater (at least in the US) than the government's right to shut them up.

However, other individuals (or a group of individuals, such as a corporation like F-Droid) have the same right to speak, as well as the right to control the speech on their private property.

There is an important distinction there. From a legal standpoint, the government are restricted from (except in very narrow circumstances) limiting an individual's speech.

However, private actors have no such restrictions on their private property.

a "community" of individuals can absolutely express their dislike/dissatisfaction with the speech of others by banning them from their private property.

It's only the government that's restricted from doing so.

My comment is not about the best way to organise society. It’s pointing out that if you believe that view, you still have a bias. The OP’s comment sounded like “I’m not biased, because my view is objectively correct”.

>My comment is not about the best way to organise society. It’s pointing out that if you believe that view, you still have a bias. The OP’s comment sounded like “I’m not biased, because my view is objectively correct”.

My misunderstanding. Apologies.

Upon reflection, I think my comment dovetails nicely with your point.

The community does not, and should not have the right to shut someone up. They have a right not to listen.

>let everybody say whatever they want.

So SPAM is ok?