I can't imagine how those poor people must feel.
The validity if your statement depends heavily on what's your personal definition of free speech, and where you draw the line regarding acceptable censorship and persecution from the state.
Considering the spectrum of free speech includes absolutists who argue speech can only be free if it's free from any consequences from the state, there's a huge grey zone on where to draw the line.
Bullies stop when you punch them in the nose.
Offering people "content filtering controls" might work in a small population where bullies could get ignored completely after a short time, but IME it doesn't even work then. What does work is when the community stops them cold by banning them.
But not everyone is a bully, so the system needs to be more nuanced than that, with warnings and lesser punishments before the final ban.
Personal filters are a good thing because it allows people to go beyond the rules and filter out things that bother them personally, and even to stop the bullying personally while the community works out that the bully will not stop. But it's the first step, not the last.
Blocking words is useless, they will use fake words.
Block on hash is useless, they will distort the video to generate new hash.
there's no personal definition imho - free speech is the allowance of the citizens to say anything, regardless of whether the state wants it heard or not.
Free speech isn't the idea that other people must have the opportunity to hear one's speech.
So sending emails or photos to people (ostensibly to harass) doesn't constitute free speech.
“IMHO” stands for “in my humble opinion”. I think you might be conflicted on this one.
What the parent post seems to be advocating for is that tech companies should automatically attempt to hide people from harm, and that they're best-placed to do that. I think it's doubtable whether they'll be able and willing to implement that in an effective or accurate manner (partly because it requires putting significant time, money and staffing into it, it can never be completely automated, and attackers -- especially in individual or small cases -- evolve as the representative mentions in the quote), and I don't think it respects or empowers victims, long-term.
It's also key to focus on the perpetrators - hold them accountable and figure out the reasons why this happened in the first place.
I'm glad that as an absolutist, you managed to make a compromise, even if it's just for beheading. How can we convince you rape, insults, religious conflict, racism apology, or even treasonous discourse also can be regulated ? What is so good about stupidity that it has to be exposed so free to the public or what is so special about it that it can't be distinguished from intelligence ?
I.e. nobody can shut your mouth, or stop you from speaking, but there can still be consequences if your speech is directly aimed at unjustifiable harassment.
For instance, simply making the video available on a web site would be protected speech (no restriction on that) - assuming no other law was conflicted (copyright, etc.) But going out of one's way to push the speech to those it harms, and on services that prohibit it, creates a problem independent of the freedom to simply speak/publish.
Likewise, you can publish technical secrets you were given under a nondisclosure agreement, but will be prosecuted civilly and possibly criminally (depending on circumstances) for the damage you have done to intellectual property value.
You can claim anything you want for some product, but expect to pay for it legally if you are defrauding people.
You can publish any code you want, source or object code, but expect to pay the consequences if you are publishing code that doesn't belong to you, or violating an open source license by only publishing in one form, without providing the required form, or without proper attribution.
Etc.
For all those cases, nobody limits your speech, but direct consequences of your speech can still result in enforcement action.
Restraining order.
And in this case, it should be issued against any Does that engage in the activity.
If you start creating a long list of rights then the complexity of balancing all the areas of contradiction will be so many that inevitably an elite will simply use the plethora of rights/contradictions to rationalize getting their way.
In most important things, we need to keep boiling down the principles to as few as possible to explain/perform as needed.
The problem is: who gets to define “stupidity” and “intelligence” and the exact limits of what speech is allowed or not. We already have provable examples of people who were considered some of society’s biggest idiots while alive but ended up having a deep and lasting impact to society in the long term (Socrates is a notable example). It’s also guaranteed that this power would be abused to prevent legitimate political discourse almost immediately after granted. There is no such thing as perfect, consistent enforcement. It’s always subject to the human biases of today.
Its good that you're exploring what the limits are and that you have found a limit. Those need to be clarified.