Comment by intended

Ok. Sure, so I think my error was based on my over extrapolation from this:

>people here that gatekeepers (companies) should have the power to decide that and 'protect' their audience from it. That IMO is anti free speech, as the 'protect' part of the term is abiguous/subjective and depends on the beliefs/opinions of the gatekeepers.

Gatekeeping would be a right of platforms and I assumed that combating it would involve forcing them to behave in accordance with an external force.

And Since you are discussing only twitter, it does follow that Twitter has an anti-speech position, despite their stated intentions.

——-

For a bit more fun, I think what X was proclaiming is the naive version of free speech. The kind of “anyone can make this app” naive over generalization.

I have a mechanism which allows me to balance the needs of moderation and censorship with free speech. Its an interesting exercise, I think you might like working through it.

From personal experience - I have had to ban people, and it was a form of censorship. Resolving this contradiction effectively changed my career path.

So I have a 1000 users on my forum. One user is incredibly active, and spends their time abusing a specific local minority group.

Things like X minority needs to die, not arguing in good faith.

Now, ideally I shouldn’t ban him, and let counter speech do its things. But since they aren’t arguing in good faith, counter speech doesn’t work.

Over time, this is also creating second order effects in other conversations.

It’s attracting a new kind of user, its driving conversations to be more polarized, and its reducing time spent on longer more thoughtful posts.

How would you respond, and why?