There is no "valid" content from that tabloid.
The platform you’re using to blast it, within the confines of their platform.
You should have the freedom to start such a forum without being regulated out of existence and join such a forum without fear of isolation. You should not be able to force other privately owned forums to adopt your view.
One of the main arguments for free speech is that you let everyone talk without government interference and let private actors decide what are good and bad ideas.
Everyone in this post who wants these public platforms to be forced to host all speech sound like what they really need is to have these platforms to be nationalized and run with government rules. What’s confusing to me is the majority of the people I see who want these platforms to host all speech are also in the same group that thinks everything should be done by companies and not the government
For what it's worth, I think this fear is misplaced. Unless Elon can figure out how to run Twitter without ads, woke-bigotry is safe as long as advertisers are using woke politics to distract from their evils.
> Art. 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Are 50% of the "censored" posts regular reporting? 1%? 0.00001%? Shouldn't a detail like that matter?
If I could make the rules, my rule for conversations about one-off examples would be that you have to immediately follow up by talking about how representative that example is of the phenomenon you are using it to illustrate.
Exactly. And I would add, nobody who claims they are a "free speech absolutist" can stay consistent with that declaration after even one or two simple questions.
Does free speech absolutism mean unmoderated ISIS and Al-Qaeda posts are fine? Because we need to expose them to healthy debate for the benefit of societal progress? The answer typically is "well that's not speech, that's _____", and then it's a debate over why there's a special different word for the type of speech they want to prohibit.
As a free speech absolutist, "yes".
That's literally literally what the word "absolutism" in "free speech absolutism" means.
You can have free speech absolutism or controls to stop gaming the system. Pick one.
After that it becomes a debate over which controls to have, and the argument that multiple accounts is worse than incitement to racial hatred or antivax nonsense isn't a clear cut one.
A lot of the "free speech" complaints about social media amount to complaints about social media platforms adding content warnings about [alleged] sensational lies or penalising their reputation anyway.