[istinetz]

>If an actual majority of people wanted something cancelled, then it probably should be cancelled.

I encounter this sentiment on hackernews all the time, and it's honestly baffling to me. Apply this logic to the fifteenth century - the vast majority wants blasphemers "cancelled", there is no Enlightenment, no Renaissance, Galileo is banned from Facebook for hate speech [against religion].

I would assume that you don't think blasphemers should be stoned, now or in any age, right? Then why do you trust the majority to make moral decisions now, but not then? Do you think that we've achieved perfect understanding of society and ethics exactly when we invented the internet?

[josephcsible]

> Apply this logic to the fifteenth century - the vast majority wants blasphemers "cancelled"

I'm not convinced this is the case.

Anyway, I agree following the majority isn't ideal, but I don't know of a better solution.

[istinetz]

>I'm not convinced this is the case.

What, really? The majority wants blasphemers stoned now, today, in some countries. Why would you think it was better then?