>less clear national security threat. Though, one could argue they are radicalizing internal threats.
I don't and will never buy this argument that showing people certain media causes violence or is a security threat. People doing violent things is a security threat. What they read or believed that led them to do that is not. Freedom of expression is vital and defending it comes with serious negative consequences. It means defending heinous views, some which have only ever been linked with radicals and violence. But they are allowed to say those views and to say them to other people. And people are allowed to read, watch, and see those views.
I agree with you! But where I differ is when people get trapped in these algorithmic bubbles because they happen to search for or like something once or twice. Then they are fire hosed that type of content over and over, which IMO is very different than being allowed to say or see something.
That's indeed where we differ. If I were alive when the radio were invented or the television, I wouldn't think the technical change changed my ideals, and I don't think that now
I don't and will never buy this argument that showing people certain media causes violence or is a security threat. People doing violent things is a security threat. What they read or believed that led them to do that is not. Freedom of expression is vital and defending it comes with serious negative consequences. It means defending heinous views, some which have only ever been linked with radicals and violence. But they are allowed to say those views and to say them to other people. And people are allowed to read, watch, and see those views.
I'll die on that hill any day