[throwaway316943]

> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

>…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it.

All these calls for censorship make me think we really are doomed to repeat history forever.

[causi]

Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom, except for porn. Freedom, except for violence. Freedom, except for political dissent or mis-gendering or the promotion or criticism of a religion.

As someone who falls near the middle on most issues I probably detest a larger percentage of speakers than anyone who's solidly on the Left or the Right, but I have no issue understanding that my freedom depends on their freedom. If the people I despise are not free to speak then neither am I.

[BizarroLand]

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.

It stands to reason then that if all speech is truly free eventually some speech will be censored. America doesn't allow people to say "Fuck" on public TV broadcasts, therefore all speech isn't free. No one is harmed by a curse word. Worst case a child will learn the word a few years earlier than when they usually do, and yet we censor that anyway.

Therefore, you can't say that all speech is free speech on all channels.

What you say in person may at worst get you into an altercation or ostracized, but you have the right to say it. Once your voice is amplified out of earshot you are no longer truly free to speak as you will.

You can say what you want to say, yes, but the repercussions of your words amplify with every repetition. Not everyone is aware of that, and when you are on a platform where, by words, you can incite a group to violence safely from the other side of the country, you should have your speech monitored and censored if need be.

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

[didibus]

Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that hate speech and propaganda has been a part of almost all atrocities ever done in the past?

Or put some other way, how do you reconcile that your freedom can be affected by someone's else's freedom? Like what if I use my freedom to turn others against you and have them hate you and berate you and bully you and ridicule you and refute you, and potentially have them vote for laws that take actions against you, or possibly have them commit hateful acts towards you, etc.

[sanderjd]

The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people at no cost is one that we just invented in the last twenty years. It is not a right.

[wintermutestwin]

>All these calls for censorship

Isn't the root problem here is the near monopoly held by god-tier corporations? Shouldn't FB/Goog have the right to moderate their content as they see fit? Shouldn't their network effect de facto monopolies be regulated so that there is room for other voices?

[starfallg]

>Truth

An illusion of truth can be created by repeatedly stating falsehoods by agents with an agenda to push. The question isn't about censorship, but rather how we can make our liberal democratic societies resistant to this type of manipulation, which inevitably results in terminal decline.

[gmadsen]

What I've come to realize is this asks far too much of the average person. Ideas do not win on their logical merits. Rationality is not the driving force of opinion for the majority of people. The alternative is probably worse, as some sort of totalitarian regime, but I just don't think billions of humans are capable of ensuring their own survival as a species

[throwaway316943]

A billion minds are better than one.

[sanderjd]

People have a right to speak, but they don't have a right to have their speech amplified by others. There is no right to broadcast. Mill would agree with this, assuming you could explain to him how broadcast media works, which didn't exist in his time.

[teakettle42]

Mill wasn’t talking about rights; he was talking about the propensity to suppress unpopular speech, why that’s dangerous, and accordingly, and the moral necessity (and implications) of open discourse.

[mcguire]

What happens if nobody listens to your proofs? What happens if they prefer the lie?

[teakettle42]

What you’re really asking is “What happens if people do not do what we tell them to do? What happens if they disagree with us?”

Is it appropriate to force people to adhere to your strictures if they won’t do so voluntarily?

[throwaway316943]

Conversely, what if your assumed truth is false and you successfully censor any attempt to disprove it?

[WillPostForFood]

What if only one truth is allowed, and it is wrong or a lie? You are putting all your eggs in one basket.

[artificialLimbs]

Then they will learn hard lessons.

[bradknowles]

You are free to hold whatever opinions you want.

You are not free to force me to listen to them.

[a_c]

Much debate in the society stems from unfalsifiability