Technically illiterate people just don't understand how impossible this is without it turning into some Chinese social media censorship they'd be fully against.

see no way in this backfiring at all.

agreed. if you dont like someone twitter or whatever just dont go on it, its really that simple. but people continue go on pages they dont agree and wonder why theyre mad lmao

It's close to impossible to hire enough people to manually moderate a website with a user base in the hundreds of millions, and relying on an AI leads to people being falsely banned.

I.E. YouTube banning gay people for their coming out videos.

-"stop being so soft"

-lol they're making threats to eliminate my race on the internet

-"lol you just ignore it you snowflake softboi."

niggas want the alt right to just flourish so much lmfao.

pretty much

i mean private ownership can regulate whatever speech they want

you can't scream slurs to a black or a muslim employee in a walmart without getting kicked out and banned from the establishment for a better a***ogy with this

first amendment only protects from being arrested by the state for your speech, and even that has exceptions when it directly threatens state power/endangers public safety

first amendment free speech does not prevent social consequences for it

there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of free speech in western discourse, meaning that you should be able to say whatever you want without consequence, no matter how horrible it is

if you tell someone "fuck you, i hope your family dies in a car crash", the social consequences most likely will be that someone will physically respond in a negative way and most likely hurt you

there are also laws against slander and libel

Because of the people who use them

i mean, we have some lurking here

nord vpn advertised on disney channel now it aint 2008 anymore

it's the paradox of tolerance

historically, far-right authoritarians have used the right to free speech to get to power, and when they get into power, free speech and anti-gov speech is suppressed

Forums are significantly smaller and usually have dedicated mods.

Social media has hundreds of millions of users.

Once you start letting them restrict speech, where do you draw the line between what is ok and what isn't?

What if google starts manipulating search results to favor one politicians over the other?
Or twitter starts subtly restricting tweets that mention a political candidate that twitter finds a threat to their profits?

There are movements rn that are aiming to breakup up big tech and I can see these tech companies using their power to make sure that never happens.

Also to add that restricting speech is a thin veil over the problem. You aren't going to end racism or even impact it significantly by restricting if you can say racist words online. Racist people will learn to hold their tongue but thier thoughts will remain the same

They don’t even need to use the justification of censorship. Just look at the s*** with Tulsi and Google.

She was trending after one of the debates, and Google just mysteriously suspended her ad account, so they couldn’t publish ads while her name had some buzz. She tried to sue them and the courts ruled that it’s a private company, so it’s free game.

Exactly there are bigger issues at play than people getting their feelings hurt that some redneck is allowed to say n word online

I don’t necessarily disagree, but my point is more that they don’t even need to use the guise of censorship.

the internet is how those ideals spread and get normalized

neo-nazi/other extremist movements which have decentralized for the modern age have excelled at radicalizing youth heavily through this s***

you start at culture war “why are people getting mad for throwing n-bombs on COD” discourse then go talk about “cultural marxism” and “liberal jew agendas” and end at advocating for ethnic cleansing of minorities and the “day of the rope”, i’ve seen it happen myself

i wrote a post above, stating that the right of free speech does not protect from consequences

most conservative arguments that try to go for “absolute and unmoderated” free speech don’t understand that free speech gets used to take away others safety in the discourse (nazis harassing feminists, etc.), there’s very much a reason why people don’t have proper conservations on 4chan about issues affecting minorities

conservative arguments mostly boil down to the rejection of social consequences and that they want to say whatever reprehensible things they want without people objecting to it

it’s a complicated and nuanced discussion that needs to be had without the s***ty takes of “OH LOL LETS JUST NOT HAVE MODERATION”

So just let em just gain a platform cause....free speech?

I know, both of them just had a back and forth on this page talkin bout f*** censorship.

For the sake of a greater problem yes.

we know what side you'd be on during the civil rights movement/holocaust.

you white?