It was more of a philosophical than a political support of free speech, minted by the same forces of the early internet (in a time of true single-channel mainstream media) that a lot of us older hackers experienced.
It‘s just that over time I realized that in such a situation not the most accurate and consistent voice would win, just the most obnoxious, manipulating and brazenly lying.
There seems to be a tipping point lurking behind „pretty free speech“.
Counter-intuitively, I‘ve seen deeper, way more meaningful, effective and vulnerable conversation happening in places with very high amounts of moderation (EO Gestalt language protocol, Chatham House rules).
Count me in as a fan of well done moderation these days.
> Incidentally, it also gradually managed to cure me from free-speech absolutism. (By now, I think almost all Xisms and extremes are nonsense, but that‘s a different hot discussion to be had).
Just out of curiosity, were you in favour of absolute free-speech on a private forum like HN, or that there shouldn't be laws banning specific speech acts?