A new study links partisan activity on the Internet to widespread online toxicity, revealing that politically-engaged users exhibit uncivil behavior even in non-political discussions. The findings are based on an analysis of hundreds of millions of comments from over 6.3 million Reddit users.
Allowing “actual freedom of speech” and respecting “all opinions” requires allowing Nazi propaganda and calls for literal genocide, and respecting “all opinions” means respecting Nazi opinions.
Call me a bigot, but those are some intolerant opinions that I will not tolerate. And when normal people refuse to tolerate that nonsense those people migrate to places without moderation…so they can spout bigoted nonsense under the guide of freedom of speech.
But freedom of speech is allowing all opinions, even when you don’t agree with them.
And PCM rules include “Do not promote hate based on identity or vulnerability. This includes the use of slurs, echos, and/or Ouija style letter/word chaining. “Just a joke” is not, never has been, nor ever will it be, an excuse for breaking this rule.”
and “Advocating, inciting, or participating in brigading is not allowed.”
If you don’t allow explicitly harmful or intolerant content like slurs or calls to genocide, who decides what is “intolerant”? If you allow only some opinions but restrict others you turn a community into an echo chamber that pretends to have free speech, which is worse than having no free speech at all.
I think an echo chamber where everyone agrees that slurs and calls to genocide are bad is an echo chamber I’m fine with. We can argue the other stuff, but some things seem pretty cut and dry to me.
But freedom of speech is allowing all opinions, even when you don’t agree with them.
It isn’t, and it never has been. The First Amendment does not protect hate speech or harmful speech.
This sort of friendly, polite, “devil’s advocate” (emphasis on the quotes) support for Nazi speech is exactly what someone above was saying about why PCM is/was extremely toxic.
Allowing “actual freedom of speech” and respecting “all opinions” requires allowing Nazi propaganda and calls for literal genocide, and respecting “all opinions” means respecting Nazi opinions.
Call me a bigot, but those are some intolerant opinions that I will not tolerate. And when normal people refuse to tolerate that nonsense those people migrate to places without moderation…so they can spout bigoted nonsense under the guide of freedom of speech.
But freedom of speech is allowing all opinions, even when you don’t agree with them. And PCM rules include “Do not promote hate based on identity or vulnerability. This includes the use of slurs, echos, and/or Ouija style letter/word chaining. “Just a joke” is not, never has been, nor ever will it be, an excuse for breaking this rule.” and “Advocating, inciting, or participating in brigading is not allowed.”
No. Absolutely not. Freedom of speech does not equate to tolerating intolerant speech.
If you don’t allow explicitly harmful or intolerant content like slurs or calls to genocide, who decides what is “intolerant”? If you allow only some opinions but restrict others you turn a community into an echo chamber that pretends to have free speech, which is worse than having no free speech at all.
I think an echo chamber where everyone agrees that slurs and calls to genocide are bad is an echo chamber I’m fine with. We can argue the other stuff, but some things seem pretty cut and dry to me.
So…
You said it was a bastion of free speech and not an echo chamber because you can say that stuff…
Then you said they dont let you say that stuff…
And now you’re saying you can say that stuff there again…
I didn’t expect a lot of logic, but you’re literally switching between two opposites in every single comment in this thread
It isn’t, and it never has been. The First Amendment does not protect hate speech or harmful speech.
This sort of friendly, polite, “devil’s advocate” (emphasis on the quotes) support for Nazi speech is exactly what someone above was saying about why PCM is/was extremely toxic.