| Yeah, you can stop supporting censorship. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit et al are modern censorship platforms. I know that saying that violates liberal dogma, but it's true. You could probably even go so far as to say cancel culture is a censorship platform, particularly when it's misused. The problem with censorship is that it stifles intellectualism. Intellectuals have always cut against the grain and said crazy shit in essays, much like I'm saying now. It's the sort of crazy shit that challenges your worldview, and it's natural to want to downvote, report, and have that content removed from your platform of choice. But intellectualism is the only thing that can create a revolution. And politically-correct censorship is getting all the intellectuals silenced (along with all the actual idiots). Now, what's it mean to "stop supporting censorship?" Everybody agrees that, as private platforms, these companies have the right to moderate and remove any speech that they choose. The problem is that they're also seeking protections under Section 230, which says "Internet companies that don't moderate their content can't be responsible for their content." This creates a dilemma, especially when these companies have created an oligopoly surrounding online speech. We need legislation that establishes the public forums and discussion areas on these providers as public utilities so that their users receive first amendment protections under the Constitution. This still allows them to remove content that violates the first amendment - like incitement - but would otherwise reclaim the internet as the world's largest mass free speech zone. |
If this is an example of the "intellectualism" you're championing, then honestly nothing of value was lost.