[cyberphobe]

I’m fine with the government shutting down anti-democratic movements. I’m not fine with anti-democratic governments shutting down legitimate discussion that looks bad on them, or serving a foreign power. These are not the same thing.

[machina_ex_deus]

Then all it will take to lose your democracy is for a dictator to proclaim his opponents a danger to democracy. Maybe using a Reichstag fire. You can't fight evil with evil, or fight undemocratic tyrants with undemocratic measures. Introducing vulnerabilities into your democratic system is a double edged sword.

[oprah]

Exactly. What does anti-democratic mean? A brief reminder that North Korea's full name is Democratic People's Republic of Korea and East Germany was German Democratic Republic.

The reason we would usually go for the fullest amount of protection for speech was precisely because most of those issues are not simply a matter of "these people are democratic and those aren't".

[SV_BubbleTime]

> proclaim [their] opponents a danger to democracy

Hmm, now where have I heard that recently?

[cyberphobe]

Fortunately we can use our brains to think and realize that while both sides are calling the other a danger to democracy, only one of them made a concerted effort to overturn the results of an election (an overtly anti-democratic act)

[cyberphobe]

> all it will take to lose your democracy is for a dictator to proclaim his opponents a danger to democracy.

This is true, but your framing of it as something that could be stopped if… something? is absurd

[refurb]

This reminds me of when Vietnam puts blog authors or journalists in prison for "abusing their democratic freedoms".

The irony is apparently lost on them.