> In the real world those are your only two options.

This is completely ahistorical. For most of human history, across time and space, the reality on the ground has been some mixture of free speech and some limits on speech.

Of course, if you're an absolutist who insists that if there is ANY limit on speech, then there is no freedom of speech, then sure, there's only two choices. Very, very few humans that have ever lived view the world in this way.

You've set up your own false dichotomy, and have done it in literally the next sentence after accusing someone else of doing the same. Amazing.

The situation is nuanced. It's not black and white–it's not easy. There is some balance to be struck on free speech. Some speech should be protected (dissent against the government), some should be forbidden (inciting a riot), and it's a thorny ever evolving problem to figure out what exactly defines those terms.

I'm not sure it is a _false_ dichotomy though. GP is basically saying there are two options.

1. Absolute free speech

2. People who have the power to censor, and abuse it

You're basically just adding a third option

3. People who have the power to censor, and don't abuse it.

I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation.

edit: formatting

>I think many people would argue that #3 is impossible, and an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree that power isn't being abused in #3. In which case, GP's original 2 options are not a false dichotomy, and are simply the reality of the situation.

I think many people would argue that #3 is not impossible, or an unachievable ideal. At the very least, nobody is ever going to be able to agree power is always being abused in #2. In which case, GP's original 2 options are indeed a false dichotomy, rather than the reality of the situation.

Wouldn't the very situation of a platform like Twitter censoring or moderating the speech on the platform represent a kind of middle-ground?

It's a private company, and one can start another one that caters to a different crowd (see Parler or w/e). The government is in no position to stop that, and nobody in this thread is arguing they be given such power.

As far as truly public spaces go, the law still allows all speech. Government can't stop someone from voicing their opinion at a public meeting based on content, etc. Even if it's Covid misinformation or something.

You have not demonstrated a false dichotomy. Even inciting a riot doesn't have to be forbidden. Rioting itself is the problem, not talking about rioting.

We may decide it's better to not allow rioting speech, but that doesn't make it a false dichotomy.

I think he means this bit:

>you can either have ... In the real world those are your only two options

That wont work. Any time there is a riot, the government can claim it was incited by the dissenters they wished they could prosecute directly.

they already can, and don't, so that settles that

It's not quite that simple - not only can absolute free speech be absurd (a condition I don't really care about to be honest, untruth will always be prevalent), but it can be actively dangerous: free speech can include terrorist radicalisation, trying to convince people to join perform suicide bombings or shoot up churches. Much of the far right radicalisation in recent years has occurred in Internet forums.

That's not to say that the answer is obvious, but the current setup that we have where only the most egregious speech and harassment is explicitly banned and social norms are enforced by social pressure seems to work. I think a lot of people advocating for free speech are ambiguous as to whether they're arguing against explicit censorship or against social pressure, which can obscure the conversation.

"Terrorist radicalization" is a nonsense buzzword cultivated by warmongers and governments trying to manufacture consent for oppression.

Terrorists are radicalized by material conditions, the speech that is claimed to radicalize them is part of the process but it is not causal. Western imperialism created ISIS, not a handful of bloggers who are mad about it.

Do you think if you read ISIS propaganda you'd feel compelled to join, or is the speech itself not the primary factor in radicalization?

I agree 100%, material conditions are the initial cause, but that outside the affected area that simply causes disaffection - terrorist propaganda directs that disaffection towards killing civilians. Given that far right radicals are created by the material conditions of late capitalism and misdirected towards hating minorities by propaganda, the only thing we can really do about that (aside from trying to change those conditions, which we should already be doing) is to try to avoid them being contacted by fascists looking to utilise their anger.

I think it's very strange that I see the same people defending one person's right to advise a present murderous regime on how to use cryptocurrency to get around sanctions and then advocate for jailing other people for voicing dumb opinions about historical murderous regimes.