[bitdizzy]

What do you mean by tribalism?

What is inconsistent about thinking hate speech should be deplatformed and porn shouldn't be? Or vice versa? It seems to me like you're implying that the only reasonable and honest principle of free expression is completely absolute and anything else is cynical.

People can agree on the value of free expression and agree that there should be limits which align with their values while their values diverge. Is people having different values tribalism?

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

I think it’s consistent to believe that free expression allows for deplatforming, and then to have a belief about when deplatforming is necessary.

I don’t think it’s consistent to think that deplatforming is wrong, but only when the type of deplatforming that was most recently brought to your attention is a kind you don’t like.

I think “free expression” in this context is more like a tool for argumentation than a real principle that people hold, so people forget about it when convenient. (people who always or never support deplatforming get points for consistency)

[bitdizzy]

Do you think the distinction between government interdiction and private is immaterial? I think I regard the distinction between business and government a lot less than most but still understand that there are significant differences between the two and some people think those differences are extremely important.

But what is meant by tribalism?

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

In this other thread I point out examples of government passing and proposing regulations about hate speech deplatforming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26363013

By tribalism, I mean that people have an intuition for whether the deplatforming is promoted by, or used against, people who they identify with, and that guides their views on whether deplatforming is appropriate. For example, people in one tribe have recently been identifying with people who got deplatformed for hate speech or incitement and they believe these efforts are driven by the repressive values of another tribe. Others read the story about porn and think about how Utah legislators are part of some other tribe, and that leads that to make some argument from free expression (I think the highest rated comment here about “small government” is a good example).

You could make an argument that’s more tribe-independent like this: “limiting freedom of expression by deplatforming is appropriate, but only to prevent a legitimate harm”. Then the two tribes would try to justify their side by debating about which harms are legitimate, which at least has a chance of being data-driven.

People who say that deplatforming is never or always appropriate get points for consistency. But I suspect that their comments will mostly be upvoted on stories where the principle aligns with the more prevalent tribe.