I agree protecting opinions I personally might not agree with is important.
However, I see no value at all in protecting calls to violence or protecting speech that is intentionally designed to deceive or manipulate.
Additionally, attributing and contextualising information must be allowed.
Finally, many scientific matters are settled (such as that climate change exists, that there was systemic discrimination of PoCs even long after abolishment of slavery and that Earth is not flat).
Stating that those debates are settled and that trying to "reopen" them does not do any good must be allowed.
The right thinks the left is trying to manipulate people and the left thinks the right is trying to manipulate people.
Also, why wouldn't I be able to talk against climate change? I know it's real but that's besides the point I'm trying to make. Why should I be stripped of that right? To me, it sounds like when you couldn't speak about religion or have any kind of doubt. Not only it's bad because it pure censorship but it creates a precedent to ban speech against what some people think it's settled.
Its in poor taste, but it's not your place to say that it has no value. That post has a lot of political meaning and promotes strong police response to non peaceful protests. People are just angry about the phrasing. This is far from having no value imo.
What are you implying, that it has no value because it advocates violence?
EDIT: To be precise why I'd disagree with that, promoting self defense advocates violence, but still has value to pretty much everyone. This is controversial because of the current climate, but saying it has no value is false.
It's a call for violence in the face of violence, which is exactly what used to be the obvious role of police up until this marvellous new age bestowed on us by 2020.
Are you sure? Because when Trump said that the last thing I thought was he was calling for violence. To me he was stating a fact. And as we've seen, people rioted, looted and some ended up using guns. Happened in 92 also. Remember the "roof Koreans"?
>However, I see no value at all in protecting calls to violence or protecting speech that is intentionally designed to deceive or manipulate.
Congratulations - you just allowed the South to secede and defanged every rousing political speech ever. You also prevented entrance of USA in WWI (media played huge role there)
By your definition in this day and age a leader cannot use social media to gather support for a war.
>Finally, many scientific matters are settled (such as that climate change exists, that there was systemic discrimination of PoCs even long after abolishment of slavery and that Earth is not flat).
And who is it that decides when a scientific matter is "settled"? You? Trump? Zuckerberg? Bartolomeo Spina [0]?
>Stating that those debates are settled and that trying to "reopen" them does not do any good must be allowed.
With this single sentence you have highlighted the entire problem with this approach. "It is a settled scientific matter that Earth is the center of the universe and trying to reopen this debate will not be tolerated" is stunningly similar to what Copernicus was told.
I don't believe that moderating away content and discussion of climate denial would actually result in climate change deniers changing their views. They'd simple disengage with the social networks that institute such moderation and instead seek out alternative mediums. They are plenty of other venues online and offline for climate change denying and other questionable content.
This could even create a business opportunity for new social networks with different moderation policies. That could backfire and create even stronger echo chambers. Imagine a social network that prohibits content in support of prochoice for abortion. The site administrators could simply argue that the issue has been settled and prolife is the only moral stance.
> I don't believe that moderating away content and discussion of climate denial would actually result in climate change deniers changing their views. They'd simple disengage with the social networks that institute such moderation and instead seek out alternative mediums. They are plenty of other venues online and offline for climate change denying and other questionable content.
One key effect here too: Even if being among other people doesn't turn them away from climate change denial, it can ground them in reality in other areas better.
Can you give examples of some kinds of opinions you're in favor of protecting? If you're excluding speech that you find intentionally designed to manipulate and speech that contradicts science you believe is settled, I'm not sure what's left beyond favorite ice cream flavors.
Science that 90+% of scientists believe it's settled.
I mean, if you got new empirical data to show that the overwhelming evidence is wrong and earth is in fact flat, please do submit a paper and get some feedback from the scientific community.
What I believe is harmful is to present worldwide scientific consensus on one hand and granny's gut feeling on the other hand as equally valid opinions - and then conclude that a topic is "disputed". This happens a lot in social media.
However, I see no value at all in protecting calls to violence or protecting speech that is intentionally designed to deceive or manipulate.
Additionally, attributing and contextualising information must be allowed.
Finally, many scientific matters are settled (such as that climate change exists, that there was systemic discrimination of PoCs even long after abolishment of slavery and that Earth is not flat).
Stating that those debates are settled and that trying to "reopen" them does not do any good must be allowed.