[lurrr]

> Political opinions aren't somehow exempt from the judgement by others

I agree. Nothing and no one is exempt from judgement or criticism. This is exactly what some people seem to refuse to understand.

> Opinions, and speech, have power Nonsense. People have power.

> Therefore, some speech is harmful

We are past the inquisition. Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives. People do that. There is the argument that they can encourage you to do all these things, but does it really happen outside an "echo chamber"? Throughout history this happened only when conflicting opinions weren't allowed.

In the free market of ideas the bad ideas will lose and the good ones will win. It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it, that is why they don't allow others to voice conflicting opinions. They will lose. The only sane and healthy way to fight what you called "harmful speech" (i.e. the kind that encourages violence and/or discrimination) is through debate. If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

[matt4077]

> It is inevitable that the best "product" wins. These people know it

How? By what mechanism? An opinion isn't a product.

Take ISIS as an example that's less controversial (here): do you believe that people willing to act as suicide bombers can be convinced, by rational argument alone, to change their views?

And considering there are still extreme right-wing extremists, adopting the symbols of their predecessors from 70 years+ ago: how long does this market take to do its magic?

Yes, I'm using the most extreme example, because obviously people shouldn't lose their livelihood for, say, complaining about the weather. But note that there's a fail-safe in this mechanism: to have a reasonable expectation that doxxing someone will get them fired, the speech in question must be outside the Overton-window of what society deems acceptable.

> If we silence people and destroy their lives are we really better?

For that memo: it would seem extreme, yes–and I believe the reason for the firing wasn't meant to penalise his opinion, but an attempt to quell the damage created inside and outside of Google by his ham-fisted treatment of a sensible topic.

But for neo-nazis: yes, we are better. Because they are motivated by hate, and seek to harm innocent people ("Jews will not replace us"). Whereas their opponents only seek to stop them. I, for example, frequently attend counterprotests when neonazis try to march through the streets of my city. But I'm not Antifa or a communist or Stalinist. When they stop, I will not attend some other rally calling for the death of bankers, or people with glasses.

Also:

> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives.

Is somewhat in conflict with "but if you tell their employer, you're destroying their lifes!"

Of course words can harm. Otherwise they're either completely useless, or have only positive impacts. In that case we should connect a source of randomness with a text-to-speech synthesiser, and watch the world magically improve.

[EliRivers]

In the free market of ideas the bad ideas will lose and the good ones will win.

Do you have proof of this? Seems that a lot of bad ideas win. Or are we defining good and bad ideas circularly; the ones that win are the good ones?

[zimpenfish]

> Word's don't hurt, they don't kill, they don't destroy lives. People do that.

Where do words come from?

[DarkKomunalec]

> It is inevitable that the best "product" wins.

If that were so, then pharma companies wouldn't spend more on advertising than R&D. And fat32 isn't ubiquitous because it's 'best'. There are many, many ways to beat your competition, and having the better product is just one.

I do otherwise agree that people shouldn't be silenced.