[saeranv]

Well said. I especially appreciate the distinction you're making between balancing liberty with liberty-destroying ideology.

This is the kind of difficult nuance that I rarely see in these discussions. One one side there's the free speech absolutists, whose arguments tend to ignore the fact that unmoderated propaganda, and hate speech tends to be more addictive, and spread ignorance faster then fact-checking can fix it. The consequences of this sort of callous attitude are literally genocide[1].

On the other hand, there's the 'cancel-culture mobs' (for lack of a better term) which are now censoring regular speech that disagrees, or appears to disagrees, or isn't sufficiently subservient to their opinions. Just yesterday I was sadly reading this depressing thread where Yann LeCun was run off twitter[2] for explaining how bias (in the social science sense) can be traced back to various steps in the ML pipeline (in this case, mainly a feature of the dataset itself, but also the choice of errors, bias vs variance, etc).

The inability to admit nuance is the only thing I can think both these groups share, and maybe what needs to be emphasized more.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

[2] https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1274782757907030016