[philovivero]

No-one believes in the right of the individual overruling all else. I'm not sure how you are coming to that conclusion.

If you offend all of society (or more realistically, most of it), then sure, you are going to have a bad few years. No-one really disagrees there.

But if you offend some tiny segment of socieety, a single malicious and persistent "villager," then you should not have to endure that person spending all their time trying to ruin your life.

If it's one person, you would get a restraining order.

What do you do if it's 10,000 people, in a world of 7 billion? Clearly that's even smaller an influence than a single person in a village. We need a modern day equivalent of a restraining order against those 10,000 so they don't get you fired from your job, divorced from your wife, estranged from your kids, and sent packing from your bank.

This is what everyone's upset about. No-one is defending the dictator wannabe who is advocating for murdering half the planet to get socialism to finally work. Everyone agrees that guy's a nut, and it's fine if he gets fired.

[SyzygistSix]

I think we can all agree their political views are nuts but if they are a stable and non-disruptive person who does a good job at the water treatment plant there is no need to fire or ostracize them.

Having a set, or usually just a subset, of crazy beliefs is pretty normal. The issue is if that leads them to being disruptive or doing a poor job.

[tibbydudeza]

Amplification is a problem like we see in the US twitter - we also have our own collection of unhinged racist morons but generally it is not as bad as the US where the algorithm amplifies it.

Freedom of speech but not reach is something I can agree on but I suspect the bots and state actors will always be one step ahead.