[soraminazuki]

This kind of response reinforces the parent's concern. Expressing concern for the erosion of free speech rights doesn't make one a right wing fanatic just because they don't mention every other political issue in the exact same comment.

[spiderfarmer]

The free speech absolutists were always criticized because of their hypocrisy, not because of their ideology. At least the people saying there should be limits to free speech are clear and impartial as to where those limits should be, supported by laws and regulations.

[soraminazuki]

> clear and impartial as to where those limits should be

This is a big claim. The crux of the problem is that it's virtually impossible to set a clear and consistent line. That makes it ripe for abuse by those in power, as we are witnessing right now. I think it's hypocritical to fail to even acknowledge this fact.

[spiderfarmer]

Focus your energy on the clear abuses of power by the current regime, instead of hypotheticals and edge cases in the system you once had.

The US had a great (not perfect!) system. Free speech with reasonable limits, set by laws and regulations. And helped by a certain amount trust in the system.

When power hungry people, who started abusing the system with misinformation campaigns, ran into those laws and regulations, they claimed the system was treating them unfairly. Those people are now in power.

And trust is now at a minimum.

You could blame the past system for not being able to prevent this regime, but that wouldn’t fit your beliefs. I for one, am happy that we have more stringent rules in the EU.

[soraminazuki]

That current regime is using the exact same machinery that you're advocating for to suppress freedoms, and it seems to me that your solution is to make it more ripe for abuse. This doesn't make any sense. And no, we're not talking about "hypotheticals" here when the abuse is happening right before our eyes.

Laws and regulations aren't a magical solution. You have to think about how they can be abused, or they'll be weaponized to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended. This has been abundantly clear for those who have been paying attention. See for example how lawmakers have been repeatedly pushing laws claiming to "protect children" that does nothing of the sort but does everything to erode civil liberties.

[spiderfarmer]

Even the laws claiming to protect children had all sorts of due processes.

But laws or no laws, the biggest problem is that laws and regulations don't count for the current regime. There's nothing to protect the layman from your government with this conman in charge. Consumer protections have eroded, criminals have been set free and people have been abducted.

Rules don't matter anymore. Nobody trusts your government. It's a jungle now.

[raxxorraxor]

That is not true, people championed others to be removed from all kinds of platforms.

I am not inclined to defend any stupid opinion, but especially on topics like the pandemic people were cheering on others getting banned. There is a political cost to this and that does extend to people having little ground to criticise the current US administration on these grounds.

[spiderfarmer]

Free speech doesn't give you the right to a megaphone on every platform you see fit. It just protects you from government prosecution. As a moderator, I also ban people who are just obnoxious and loud without any substance.

Right now, the government is suppressing free speech according to the very definition of that term.

How can you not see the difference.

[raxxorraxor]

You can do that as a moderator, but you still violate the principle of freedom of speech in that case. The is the prejorative of any group to do so.

I tend to prefer groups that understand the principle of free speech, but it isn't a hard requirement.

Culture formerly forced large commercial internet platforms to adhere to freedom of speech and we have lost that partially. And people are rightfully not too amused about that and it isn't necessarily team Trump they blame for that. That is the reality why he now can claim to defend freedom of speech, even if it isn't really true.

> It just protects you from government prosecution.

The first amendment of the US does, but the principle goes beyond that. It is a necessary requirement for independent research for example. There is no law for it and it still is essential.