[jmull]

The problem is, at Doctorow’s Anything Goes Cafe, a bunch of people shout loudly and abusively at other tables, incessantly go table-to-table to sell things, and even organize mobs to attack other tables.

He’s ignoring this, which makes the essay weak and pointless.

[poulsbohemian]

For that matter, I have an issue with the way he paints the list of the most prominent tech companies as though they each have some master agenda and are all approaching speech in the same nefarious way. There's a big spread there such that his approach here does a disservice to the reader.

As you point out, there's a lot of nasty hateful speech being spewed, and cooler heads are asking if there's a way to simmer it down. If we believe that such a request is a path to censorship, then perhaps the real answer is that those with different political / social / ideological points of view need to become more aggressive with their counter approach.

[andrewflnr]

Doesn't make it weak and pointless, it's just about a different topic than you wish it was.

[plaguepilled]

This is a subtle mistake but an important one. The correct response to FAANG controlling everything is not to say "aha, so we should clearly wrest the right to moderate from these swine's" but instead democratise the moderation of online public spaces.

In other words, legislate.

[lern_too_spel]

To complete the thought, because of this, the other restaurant succeeds and expands, while the anything goes cafe shrinks to just serve the troublemakers. Blaming profit-seeking corporations for seeking profits is pointless.

[raxxorraxor]

This is the oldest criticism of freedom of expression. It could be used for bad purposes. It has never been correct though.

[peterashford]

Hmm... I've heard people from many minorities say that this is their daily lives on social media. I find your "it has never been correct" statement a little hard to believe

[raxxorraxor]

There is tons of derision and conspiracies about the ethnicity I belong to. Doesn't matter to me, doesn't define me. Restrictions to speech will never be done in the name of minorities. This is for the vanity of the masses almost exclusively, especially in our modern times.

There is not a single credible example where minorities were suppressed because people were allowed to talk too openly. There are a lot of cases were they were suppressed. And I do not believe this is what you can call a close call.

If you find any example at all, I would be interested to hear it.

[smrtinsert]

Yep more petulant whining from the faux marginalized. Nevermind I actually wasted time reading this on a very popular website.