1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Defending the open Internet (again): Our latest brief to the Supreme Court
At the very least they're fighting to protect the right for Internet communities to moderate themselves
They're fighting for the right to censor content they don't like. Period.
An argument could be had as to whether that's a good thing or not, that's not the argument I'm trying to be a part of.
It's just the height of absurdity for them to frame it as a pro free speech position.
Comment by GaryOster at 22/02/2024 at 17:48 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Ah, I see. Well, I think in arguing the positives of moderation is the argument that it's pro free speech because of how moderation protects communities from becoming so unpleasant or overwhelmed by negative, irrelevant comments that people stop talking about the thing the for which the community exists. Is there a better word or phrase for that than free speech?
Honestly, I feel like some people are thinking of 'free speech' in as anarchic, and others as civil.