[p-e-w]

> I wonder how "free speech absolutists" defend the idea of people in low-income countries using these platforms to spread outrage simply to make themselves a little money

By recognizing that undesirable uses of free speech are the price society pays for having free speech, and by strongly believing that it is a price worth paying.

Just like 1.3 million global road traffic deaths per year are the price society pays for having cars, and believing that people should still be able to freely own and drive cars doesn’t make someone a “car absolutist”.

The idea that free speech should probably be restricted if it turns out that free speech can lead to unpleasant consequences misses the whole point of free speech – in many cases deliberately, I think.

[reddozen]

Free speech absolutists just don't defend their position because it devolves into absurdity immediately. It's just a dogwhistle of the far right or people that haven't put any thought into their beliefs.

[p-e-w]

It’s interesting how the idea that free speech is too important to sacrifice to any other cause, which was the position of Rousseau and other enlightenment luminaries, has supposedly turned from the foundation of humanism into a “dog whistle”.

The implication that if someone is unwilling to compromise on free speech, they must belong to the far right, is certainly revealing.

[pseudalopex]

> The implication that if someone is unwilling to compromise on free speech, they must belong to the far right, is certainly revealing.

No. The implication was almost no one who claimed to be unwilling to compromise on free speech was.

[wsng]

> Just like 1.3 million global road traffic deaths per year are the price society pays for having cars, and believing that people should still be able to freely own and drive cars doesn’t make someone a “car absolutist”.

Car traffic is heavily regulated to reduce the harm being done by cars/drivers.

[account42]

Don't forget that undesirable uses of free speech can be made less effective by more speech - as long as what you desire is actually in the interest of the people you want to influence. Like for example this article.

And of course in this case the root problem is not that people have free speech but that they are financially rewarded for using it in bad ways. Financial models that reward impressions are fundamentally bad for society.

[trumpdong]

Those who are making the undesirable speech can counter their opponent's speech with more speech of their own - and they can afford to outspeak their opponents at any opportunity because they are paid to speak and their opponents are not.

[account42]

Or maybe they can counter your speech because they have an argument and you do not.

[SR2Z]

To some extent, people also just need to be less credulous.

Being saturated with ragebait slop is a good way to get people to associate ragebait with wasting their time.