Obvious as it may sound, people with authoritarian beliefs hiding behind free speech actually consider it as a weakness akin empathy. It allows losers like them to amplify their reach despite not being in power. They abandon their “free speech absolutist” postures the moment they think they are in power.

  • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I am a free speech absolutist. Evil people should say what they want to do…so that I can tell them what will happen if they try to ICE my neighbors. 🔫 🩸

    The thing about modern discourse on social media platforms like Reddit, is that bigots get to threaten people all they like. If a good person mentions Luigi or what should happen to Musk, they get banned. THIS is the real threat to democracy.

    It is best if the bad guys don’t work in secret. They should expose themselves to be monsters early and often, with decent folk making it clear that evil positions deserve equally merciless responses. I think part of why the Republicans have been so successful, is because they feel like “winners” to people who value assertiveness. Democrats almost always holds true to decorum and norms - which gives them the impression of being “weak” losers.

    Some people vote for the strong, because by extension, it makes themselves feel strong. I think this explains why some people simply never listen to any amount of reason or evidence - they perceive the world through feelings, not thought. This is why “rough” speaking democrats might hold value in our society, because they can speak the same language, while still holding the values of goodness close to their heart.

    To put it simply, a lot of Republicans might cease supporting Trump, if the following entered their mind: “They are stronger than me. I don’t want to get punched! Let’s stay home.”

    …it isn’t terrific, but I think some people are simply biased towards authority. Be it good or evil.

    • bananoidandroid@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I agree with your point in general but free speech is a right that is only a protection from consequences from the government and does not include private coorporations or citizens. If someone start spewing racist remarks in my house, i’ll ask them to leave. The same applies for reddit and other platforms. We can freely move to a place where our speech is allowed. We can’t just force every single platform or every gathering allowing all speech at all times.

      • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I disagree about private corporations. Money is no different from that of religion, violence, or any other form of power. So long as you have a large monopoly on these things, you can greatly influence people to speak…or silence them. Reddit traditionally served as a public square, but now we see selective speech being forced upon everybody: Musk good, Luigi bad.

        It is one thing to control speech within your personal dwelling, but it is quite another when you are in charge of a service. Should you be allowed to ban gay folk from buying cake? Or prevent a black man dating a white girl from dining at a classy restaurant?

        Violence has many permutations, and forcing everyday norms is by far the most corrosive to personal identity and the social fabric.

        • bananoidandroid@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I respect your ideal and i think its a good basic value to have, but lets be honest. Reddit has always had content moderation in one way or another but had very high level of tolerance. I remember when every second post on reddit was a huge ascii of pedobear and they had subreddits with legal yet very untasteful pictures of underage girls and bullying fat people had their own subreddit. At some point it became large enough to get large investors that doesn’t want their name next to a barely dressed 14 year old. Then TheDonald and other right wing subs was banned, so it has mostly upheld free speach for what is popular among its users for the longest of time but has never been a free speach platform. Even 4chan today is nowhere near what it used to be, for good reasons i think because i think no sane person would look at it and think, this is free speach in its prime.

          • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 minutes ago

            Moderation is when you take down material because the recipient doesn’t want to see it. Censorship is when you take down content because you don’t want the recipient to see it, regardless of how the recipient feels about it. If people think censorship is sometimes justified, they should argue that, and not muddle the picture with moderation.