Incidentally, in the US at least, the idea of “free speech” is now firmly associated with the far right conservatives.
The latest impression is driven by conservatives' messaging that "big tech" is censoring them, coupled with their belief that tech mores used to calibrate that censorship are coastal (and therefore more liberal).
Ergo, free speech is their right to say conservative things.
In the 60s and 80s and 00s, it was liberal. Give it another few years to swing back.
It's not a "messaging", it's an observable fact. Look at political leanings and donations for Twitter or Facebook workers. Over 80% goes to the left. And that's before we consider that the power is not distributed equally there and if you look at the people in power it's more like 100% to the left.
> Ergo, free speech is conservatives' right to say conservative things.
That's a completely wrong conclusion. Free speech is everybody's right to say their things, but conservative's rights are infringed much more frequently, so they complain more.
You have that backwards.
White supremacist rallies have labeled themselves as "free speech" rallies in an attempt to normalize their cause.
However, exercising one's free speech rights by rallying for a cause does not automatically make that cause synonymous with supporting "free speech".
Free speech as in the first amendment is pretty universal.
Free speech as in Twitter bans and complaining about cancel culture is largely the far right.
It’s hardly the far right. People from all 3 political groups are scared of cancel culture. Painting this as far right serves only to label anybody that cares about such things as far right. You’re attempting to shut the conversation down. This is part of the problem and is literally misinformation that could cause violence against those labeled “far right” in the future.
> could cause violence against those labeled “far right” in the future.
That’s quite the scaremongering there, hyperbole does not move the dialog forward.
Oh but it is, why else would you label people that care about such things as extremists?
> That’s quite the scaremongering there, hyperbole does not move the dialog forward.
No it serves to make you aware of the danger of your speech.
If you start with the proposition "Anyone should be able to post anything on Twitter"...
... and want to get to "Everyone enjoys reading Twitter," then there's a lot of black box space in the middle.
You can have the most vile things on your platform, but your userbase self-censors. E.g. crowdsourced shadow-banning / down-voting. Or reputation with verified identities underneath.
Or just... more transparency.
Empowering the public to data-mine Twitter opens some interesting windows to a platform that has terrible things, but empowers interested parties to fruitfully research who they're coming from.