Thanks, I hadn't run across that writeup, though well aware of the issue.
This was a little gem in that article, seemingly highly relevant now:
> However, Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance that would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution, and this supersedes the principle of tolerance. This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
So that's the stance "the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others" most of the major social networks take and it falls short in that it's hard to draw that line. (also the ideas of constitutional safe guards applying to private entities is a whole other can of worms; id argue the speech the government can limit should be a subset of what any given private moderator might choose to)
Two examples:
what im going to call the "im not touching you" type of harassment -- that is posting things clearly designed to hurt and wouldn't make sense in context unless designed for harassment. The platonic example here is the image macro that's the trans flag with the words "Your parents will burry you with the name they gave you". Cuel to the extreme, but doesn't technically call for violence against the given person, or the protected group at large so twitter and facebook, etc happily leave it up (and people wanting to be assholes hyper optimized pretty quick; ive seen the macro posted by multiple people in multiple places).
Second being the idea of stochastic terrorism. Painting a group as an unchecked evil means you don't have to tell anyone specifically they should commit violence, but, it's hard to be surprised if they come to that conclusion. See the shootings in Charleston or Christchurch.
The idea of stochastic terrorism covers all passionate political rhetoric. See the Reagan assasination attempt and the congressional baseball shooting.
I think being scared of coming into contact with bad ideas (and tackling them) just stops people from understanding why they are bad ideas. E.g. if we create a cultural taboo long enough, I do believe people will stop caring if something is bad.
Just look at all the edgy teenagers who think Nazi stuff is funny -- because it's taboo and not talked about enough. Sure, teens will be teens.
But just enough people slip through the cracks and become radicalised in their little bubble, with nobody to deprogram them because of the taboo status. If everybody was still sharing the same space (i.e. popular platforms like reddit) then there's less polarization going on.
> I think being scared of coming into contact with bad ideas (and tackling them) just stops people from understanding why they are bad ideas.
You can learn about these topics in scholarly environments taught by actual experts who can provide you with real analysis. Refusing to have conversations with klan members does not prevent me from understanding and analyzing racism in america. In fact, I'm going to get a much better understanding by speaking to historians than klan members, since klan members aren't exactly incentivized to provide a dispassionate analysis of their ideology.
People aren't scared of coming into contact with bad ideas. People are frustrated with having to come into contact with propagandizing bigots who want to murder them.
