[silveroriole]

Opinions like what? The only opinions people get banned for are ones which seem openly racist, homophobic, etc. Nobody gets banned for having or encouraging alternative opinions about, like, which Java framework is the best. Not even for more controversial arguments like whether God exists (at least as far as I’m aware.) Therefore the only ‘rational debate’ that will take place is between what most people would call racists, homophobes, etc. Nobody else is going to want to post in or even look at such an environment, so it rapidly turns into a completely worthless bigoted echo chamber where everyone’s patting themselves on the back for having such enlightened alternative opinions.

[collyw]

"There are two genders" would be one - a position that I guess that the majority of the public also believe. That's ground for banning in plenty of places. We aren't allowed to discuss on many platforms. Of course I will be labelled transphobic for that opinion.

> Nobody else is going to want to post in or even look at such an environment, so it rapidly turns into a completely worthless bigoted echo chamber where everyone’s patting themselves on the back for having such enlightened alternative opinions.

Pure speculation on your part. How does it end up any more of an echo chamber than somewhere where certain opinions are removed?

[silveroriole]

So, let’s assume that everyone who got banned for saying there are two genders (and presumably strongly believes it, because they cared enough to be banned for it) is attracted to this platform. People who disagree won’t be attracted to it; they can already post their opinion on, say, Twitter without being banned, and they hold the opposite opinion anyway. Now Twitter is an echo chamber of one side of the debate, and this new platform is an echo chamber of the other side. No debate can happen on Twitter; debate can IN THEORY happen on new platform, but won’t, because of the huge imbalance in participants (imagine an in person debate where one side is allowed to bring a hundred people who will all argue with the single guy on the other side). What have we gained by that? There’s still no debate happening. The banned people might as well have started blogs instead.

[collyw]

The difference being that you can actually post / see both sides of the debate on one platform. And that isn't the one with censorship policies. You seem to be in agreement that the lack of moderation actually gets us closer to the form of debate that we are after.

[silveroriole]

I don’t really agree. Like I said, I don’t think you will ever get both sides of an argument there; one side will force the other out eventually. I’d rather have a proliferation of communities which are ‘censored’. Sure, have a forum for racists where non-racists get banned, whatever (although I won’t shed any tears if it gets closed down). If I want to see what racists think, I can go check it out. But I don’t want to be part of a space where I’ll regularly encounter racist stuff, and they don’t want to be part of a space where they’ll regularly encounter anti-racist stuff. Mashing me and the racists together in an anonymous arena where anything goes obviously won’t result in us all nicely debating and getting to know each other. It is not a step in the right direction.

[collyw]

Basically you are in favour of censorship over free speech. History has shown that top be a poor choice.

[silveroriole]

It’s not exactly censorship when you can start your own blog or platform with the exact opposite form of ‘censorship’, is it? Give me a break - someone saying “you can’t post things I think are racist on my website” is not a violation of your human rights, any more than the host of a party saying “you need to leave after what you just said” is dire political censorship akin to burning books.

Bigots of all stripes like to use the goodwill of others and their belief in freedom to say horrible, bigoted things and demand everyone listen to them. But we don’t have actually have to. That’s not what freedom of speech means.