[random314]

Free speech is now a euphemism for providing loud voices on private platforms for the far right, while banning progressive voices on the same platform.

Any time a "free speech " platform like Truth Social emerges, we can be sure that its primary purpose is amplifying Nazis and banning liberals. Sad to see Twitter starting to go in the same direction.

[nomilk]

My primary argument against banning (the right, or anyone) is I'm big enough to decide for myself if I want to listen/read them. When a platform makes the call on my behalf, they could be removing dissenting but legitimately truthful voices. I.e. people who have unpopular but true views, people who IMO should absolutely be heard out, but aren't because they're banned.

A 2nd order effect is people self censor, since saying something truthful but controversial could get them banned or deboosted or whatever the term is.

[kyleamazza]

Two of the moderation issues that I can think of are 1.) volume of information, and 2.) depth of knowledge.

Some unpopular views are overly represented on any platform. This is the reason why far left/right get amplified to be more mainstream opinions, despite being truly unpopular. Another thing is similar to self-censorship like you mentioned, but self-censorship in the sense that if you feel that the community has shifted towards a certain bent, then one might move on from that community, since it no longer represents what they're looking for/what they feel is right.

Finding legitimate information is also tough: there's been instances of journal-published data that was verifiably false, since the journal that it was published in was founded in order to push specific data/viewpoints. But, the average person doesn't know that, and probably won't be familiar with what journals are popular, legitimate, etc. While some people (you, I, and probably others on this platform) like delving deep into this sort of stuff, most people (I'm venturing a guess here) would stop short at "research shows that..." when fact-checking something.

I wouldn't argue _for_ banning, or at least would argue that there's a better way to do it that doesn't also burn people who are participating in good faith. But, most people won't/can't do the work to fact check everything since there's too much info and truly verifying everything would be a monumental task.

[theGnuMe]

A small vocal minority of hate will eventually become mainstream if good people stand by and do nothing.

Watch as Elon eviscerates the mainstream media. He already calls many legit publications disinformation, saying that twitter will be the best and most truthful source of news itself.

It's straight out of Trump's playbook. These are the the robber barons of the Internet. Hearst has nothing on them.

I see it as the sequel to atlas shrugged.

[nathanaldensr]

Your hate is not my hate (in a general sense). What gives you the right to decide?