[McGlockenshire]

The attempt to be a neutral platform is laudable, and the wording used to express the idea seems to be well thought through.

The fact remains that even though that insist that they are not endorsing any of the speakers' views, the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience (even if the presentation is entirely topical and non-controversial) acts as an implicit endorsement. Denying this doesn't change the effective endorsement.

[mcphage]

> the mere act of giving a divisive speaker an audience acts as an implicit endorsement

Giving a speaker a talk acts an implicit endorsement of all of their views? That doesn't even sound remotely true, yet you state it as if it was tautological.

[McGlockenshire]

The endorsement is implicit, not explicit.

Conf: "We're giving person A a presentation slot because they have a compelling presentation on topic W."

Possible Attendee: "Are you aware that person A has said things X, Y, and Z, which taken together can make people reluctant to associate with them?"

Conf: "We are aware of that but do not wish to make our conference about anything X, Y, or Z. The presentation is topical."

PA: "If you feature this speaker, you will cause some people to be reluctant to associate with your conference as well."

Conf: "We understand that, but speaker A is discussing topic W, not topics X, Y, or Z. We choose to feature the speaker because of their presentation on W."

By taking this position, the conference associates itself with the speaker. Possible attendees will see this association and draw the conclusion that the conference endorses the speaker, even if that endorsement is only about non-controversial things that are within the topic of the conference.

Dryly stating that there is no endorsement of any off-topic position does not remove that association and the implicit endorsement.

Implicit endorsement by association is a real effect. Go talk to any major politician about how they can't be seen talking to anyone remotely controversial, because of how associating with that person might be seen as endorsement.

[Turing_Machine]

The endorsement is implicit, not explicit.

This is totally wrong.

To take a trivial example, criminal defendants (even obviously guilty ones) are allowed to speak in court.

You're saying that this is an "implicit endorsement" of their crimes by the court? Are you really claiming that?

[McGlockenshire]

False equivalence. A trial isn't a conference.

That said, you should know as well as I do that judges will often restrict media coverage of hearings and trials in various ways because they know that the people involved (lawyers & otherwise) can and will attempt to grandstand and make a show of it, using the media as a platform for their message.

[ankushnarula]

Funny how, using your own logic, Google didn't take down Moldbug's posts. BTW, have you stopped using Google products since they endorse this kind of speech on the platform?

[McGlockenshire]

False equivalence. Google isn't a conference.

That said, you should know as well as I do that some people have indeed decided to stop using Google services based on their political behavior and viewpoints and actions ... or silence and inactions.

[ankushnarula]

Not at all. Blogger (where Moldbug's posts are alive and well) is a _platform_ - and it's owned and operated by Google. Using your logic, Google is "endorsing" this type of speech. Oh yeah - so is AWS, Azure, Akamai, CloudFlare, etc. when they take a neutral view of content.