Turn showdead in and tell me this website is a “free speech absolutist zone”.
I mean, subjectively most of those accounts deserve to be dead, but don’t pretend this is something it isn’t.
I mean, subjectively most of those accounts deserve to be dead, but don’t pretend this is something it isn’t.
One interesting thing I heard recently was this idea that even in communities of the most rusted on free speech absolutists, there's still a recognition that spam and flooding are not acceptable - and the question is, why?
It's totally possible to believe that unrestricted free speech is the best policy and to also not implement that policy.
Flooding and spamming are hated by everyone and are otherwise unimportant, there's no controversy about them. Generally free speech maximalism is about allowing all controversial speech for various reasons which tend to include the importance of dissenting voices.
Doing it right requires the intellectual honesty to draw a line between these two comments: "lol hitler did nothing wrong gas the **s! 1488 woo!" and "Hitler did nothing but implement some social control policies which would be widely accepted in today's society, if presented differently."
I obviously don't agree with either sentence. But the second one should be permitted and vouched against downvotes while the first can be deleted without a second thought. Honesty required.
I'm pretty sure, looking at twitch chat, that this isn't universally true.
Then the next question is, if this supposed truism isn't universally true, what other moderation decisions and flagging, aren't?
Free Speech absolutist don't put any concern the listener may have on the content, but the fact that the speaker is being prevented from distributing their message. Not to mention, one of the points cited by free speech absolutists is "who determines facts/truth/value" and who determines the entity who gets to do that. That means you can't make a judgement value about the spam being spam and have to treat it as something SOMEONE somewhere might desire.