[not_a_moth]

And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"

Nothing wrong here at all. As Eric Weinstein put it, something went terribly wrong at big tech.

[iscrewyou]

The president for the last 4 years used the leniency of big tech to work up his supporters. Then told them to take over the capitol on his way out of the White House.

Now everyone is surprised to see when big tech says enough is enough.

Where else would these people draw the line if not here?

[tonystubblebine]

I'm beginning to think free speech advocates here don't believe in property rights. Big Tech can do what they want with their products. They own them.

[not_a_moth]

? He repeatedly told them to be peaceful and then to go home. What/how exactly did he incite this?

Serious truth bending for political capital, which has been the DC establishment playbook the entire trump admin.

[reversengineer]

Thank goodness for big tech for telling me when enough is enough, otherwise I wouldn't be able to think for myself. What a relief!

[vmh1928]

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[devmunchies]

People care more about tolerance than they do Facebook and Google creating a human attention farms. But as long as these megacorps have a rainbow logo once a year then they're the good guy, right?

[asdf333]

well put.

it is now clear we must all defend our democracy. we can’t take it for granted.

[wslack]

Twitter should let everyone talk freely, but that isn't worth being a party to an attempted insurrection.

Being an absolutist about this means being okay with violence based on those lies, just as we saw in Myanmar.

[vmh1928]

Another way to say this is the "well-kept gardens die by pacifism."

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-...

[eyelidlessness]

Which of those websites is in any way obligated to amplify things that violate their policies?

[asdf333]

there are limits on free speech in the united states, if you recall secondary school.

after the capitol building riot where multiple people died, it’s clear that this falls into the “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre” bucket.

[vmh1928]

Another variant is by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the most intolerant win.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

[TooKool4This]

One interesting thing to consider is the Paradox of Tolerance[1]. In the case of our society, allowing the norms to be consistently pushed can lead to the rise of intolerance.

Not to mention that the decisions to ban Trump certainly wasn’t taken overnight and he was given a very long leash.

Regardless I’m sure the motives here are not philosophical but mostly profit motivated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[asdf333]

no. this is appreciated. you’d be surprised how many such gems i discover here on HN

[megablast]

The president just attempted a coup.

[disown]

> And YT deletes content mentioning election fraud, and twitter permanent bans the president, all under the historically totalitarian guise of "safety"

Also, really puts a dent into the anti-free speech argument that "you can go to another platform" argument.

I do love watching all these "tech/social media is evil" crowd here suddenly praising tech/social media and wanting them to have even more control over our lives.

Social media is so evil that we need them to control our lives even more. Wonderful logic that.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

That's a mistatement of what many of us are saying.

I certainly am not advocating that social media companies should have even more control over our lives. I would like them to have less, which presumably happens either because (a) we stop using social media (at least in the current sense) and/or (b) more options for "social media" platforms emerge.

Since (a) is unlikely in the near term, that probably means (b). I don't how Twitter banning anyone (including POTUS) from their platform does anything but encourage that.

I also don't see how "large corporations that have used psychological manipulation and network effects to become really popular must be consider public utilities, despite no law to that effect" really lines up with free speech. Do you believe that the NY Times should be required to print my op-ed's in their online version? How about my comments on their articles?