Discussion about this post

User's avatar
EricR's avatar

"Free expression of ideas is the path to human flourishing." What an excellent summation of your essay. Free expression is challenged on many levels, including the toughest one - the personal. I so often find myself at odds with family, friends, etc. over interpretations of current events, that I sometimes self-censor to maintain a civil conversation. It is especially challenging when the opinion I am faced with is some form of, "so-and-so is a nutcase!" without any backing evidence. The choice of response can sometimes end a relationship. I wonder how others deal with this.

Expand full comment
Rob's avatar

Thanks again for the thought-provoking read. I found myself agreeing with you that the censorship and suppression that took place during the COVID era was harmful and counter-productive (although I have yet to see enough evidence it's the type of problem that contributed to "16.9 million deaths").

From the title of the article and your arguments, it seems to me that you're saying censorship on privately owned platforms is always a bad thing. Am I correct in that? Anyone who has ever attempted to run a community discussion platform will eventually be faced with the reality that, like it or not, some censorship is critical in order to create a sustainable environment for discussion. I know the thrust of your article was about abuses, but what should the guiding principles of speech/community moderation be? Is some amount of "tyranny" in the form of community standards necessary in order to create an environment that is conducive to the participation in dialogue/speech? Is it a victory for free speech if a platform becomes so toxic and filled with crap that no one wants to use it - or if it simply becomes an echo chamber? What are the right policies and approaches that allow us to thread the needle?

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts