[mcphage]

> If they were more open about "Hey, we're providing you a free service, we can shut you down if you don't conform to public opinion" that's fine also. But you can't have it both ways.

That's why articles like these are being written—it's the companies letting everyone know that they're changing their policies. They used to be more laissez-faire, didn't like the results, and now are starting to rethink their decisions. I imagine in a few months' time they'll have figured out how they want it to go, and will publish updated guidelines.

[gbog]

Yes, but they will not be too clear about their elephant in the room: this will have demonstrated that free speech is not possible. Many here seem to believe in free speech, freedom to express anything, is an absolute. But it is not and cannot be. Tolerance has limits, and its limits is intolerance. Tolerance can happen only inside a framework, a common ground where the parts agree on some values, agree to tolerate each other.

Same with free speech: it is possible only inside a framework, with some higher order rules and agreement. One of them could be that you are allowed to tell others your opinions only if you would agree to carry them publicly on your back when waking your kids in the streets. This would certainly moderate a lot. Or, closer to the topic, I should be allowed to upload a video only if I'd be ok with my kid knowing I uploaded this video when they get to be my age.

[icebraining]

Why would you say it's not "possible"? Clearly it is: we didn't have those restrictions, yet people spoke.

[gbog]

Free speech is only one aspect of freedom, it is possible to have free speech only within a bigger framework enabling the more general freedom.

[jimmywanger]

You have to tolerate everything but intolerance?

Have you read Godel, Escher, Bach?

[gbog]

I have read Paul Ricoeur, and I think it's a better entry point in ethics.

[jimmywanger]

You misunderstand my point. I'm not talking ethics, I'm talking about recursive definitions.

You posit that tolerance is good and intolerance is bad. And you don't give good definitions for either word. That's literally begging the question.

[gbog]

But we are not talking about formal logic here, we are talking about ethics. We use words that have a meaning, and we all know how to recognize a "sign of tolerance" and it's opposite. There is no need for a formal definition, which is not possible anyway.

[jimmywanger]

Incorrect. We're talking about a computer system now, and you need formal definitions.

The statement "we all know how to..." is problematic. Do we buy into the "we all" that comprises the west, or the "we all" that is east asia (which, btw is far more repressive. See the great firewall of China)?