[jayspell]

“There’s always been this division between your right to speak and your right to have a megaphone that reaches hundreds of millions of people,” - that is the argument totalitarians always use. It's the same as you have the right to free speech, but not the right to print it, or you can print it, but you can't distribute it on the street corner, or talk about it in an assembly of over a certain number of people. In every instance it's about whomever has control attempting to limit the expression of an idea that they happen not to agree with. Totalitarians will always use an example of where speech somehow created harm to exhibit the need for control, the truth is that freedom does cause harm, and will always cause harm, because you cannot eliminate harm completely no matter the system. We have plenty of historical examples of the attempts to eliminate harm causing exactly the opposite.

[enraged_camel]

>> It's the same as you have the right to free speech, but not the right to print it, or you can print it, but you can't distribute it on the street corner, or talk about it in an assembly of over a certain number of people.

No printing press is obligated to mass-print a book you write. Similarly, you cannot go to a corporation's campus and distribute stuff unless you have their permission — because it is their private property. Just because private parties are refusing to give you a platform does not mean they are totalitarians.

>> Totalitarians will always use an example of where speech somehow created harm to exhibit the need for control, the truth is that freedom does cause harm, and will always cause harm, because you cannot eliminate harm completely no matter the system.

This is a strawman in the shape of an Argument from Futility. It's no different than saying "why have safety systems in cars when you cannot eliminate car accident deaths completely?" It's a strawman because nobody is aiming to completely eliminate harm from online speech, just prevent it in egregious situations where it can be prevented. It's an argument from futility because harm reduction is still a valid goal even if complete elimination of harm is not possible or feasible.

[gizmondo]

> No printing press is obligated to mass-print a book you write.

This is off-topic, I feel. The article illustrates that there is a push to stop "printing press" from printing "your book" in cases when it's perfectly happy to do that. In the name of fighting misinformation, of course.

[AnimalMuppet]

You have the right to free speech, the right to print it (at Kinkos, even if a regular printer won't touch it), the right to distribute it on a street corner, but not the right to force people to take it, and not the right to force a bookstore to sell it.