| > Censorship is when state authorities limit the speech of the people under their power. That is plainly wrong, that is just a subset of censorship. > But this is an unbelievably complicated and nuanced concept No, the concept is very simple. Defining and agreeing on exceptions in regards to ethical considerations is a hard and nuanced discussion. Some people want to force certain considerations which certainly violates the principle of free speech. That too is a very simple concept. The EU just released a law that illegal content has to be removed withing 24h. This is hilarious as determining a statement to be legal or not would take at least 6 month with the load our legal systems have to endure. But I guess after that period the content has to be removed rather quickly? The digital sphere is a hard problem for the old continent. I live in Europe and at times it is a bit embarrassing. But that is irrelevant because of course companies will err on the side of caution before any legal channels are about to be used. The criticism and implications of overblocking are well known and the author has chosen to ignore that argument completely even if we had ample empirical evidence that this is exactly what has happened. I am not really keen on billionaires using their capital to influence content either, but to my shame I must admit that the approach of Musk seems plainly better than that most media personalities suggested to us in recent years. It is no secret that there are other political groups that want to curb freedom of speech. Maybe it is time to learn that you should not advocate for it if your political opponents have more experience implementing it. > baby’s-first-free-speech-debate Is this quality journalism of '22? > What this all portends is an incredibly simplistic and harmful take on free speech and moderation There is nothing to add that we just have to disagree and I fear any compromise will be difficult with these axioms on the table. |