That was arguable in the pre-Trump state of American politics. But now? You have total crazies saying whatever (either total bullshit, advocating for/admitting crimes, etc.) running for and winning elections. This is not a stable situation, as evidenced by the fact that the man who normalised this sort of thing tried a coup to stay in office, and many people, supporters of his, including people in office or running for office, supported that effort and are already organising for the next election cycles.
What you're describing is not being caused by free speech, it is being caused by online media filter bubbles that feed people confirmation bias, elevate controversy over quality, and isolate users from opposing opinions.
Forcing people into silence definitely will not solve the problem. It will only further convince people that they were right all along.
To fix this, SV needs to get their shit together and figure out how to solve the filter bubble problem. Traditional media used editorial discretion to solve this problem, but SV seems to think they can make more money by skipping that step entirely.
However, the current state of politics in the US is by far not as bad as many moments in our past.
>What you're describing is not being caused by free speech, it is being caused by online media filter bubbles that feed people confirmation bias, elevate controversy over quality, and isolate users from opposing opinions.
But free speech must allow for filter bubbles and confirmation bias, and elevating controversy over quality. Free speech must permit manipulation and distortion, indoctrination and radicalization.
>Traditional media used editorial discretion to solve this problem, but SV seems to think they can make more money by skipping that step entirely.
SV was exercising editorial discretion by moderating content and banning troublemakers, but free speech supporters have decided doing so violated their free rights. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. "Editorial discretion" by definition is a mean of forcing people into silence, which you're against. You want the crazies to be able to express themselves, so the modern social media landscape is what you want, because that's exactly what it optimizes for.
The context of this thread is specifically American-style free speech, which protects people from government interference in speech, but does not compel others to publish speech on your behalf.
I am criticizing SV for their choices, but I don't think they should be forced to do what I think is right.
