Reddit progress

The current line is incitement to commit crime.
I think that’s fine, personally.

If only there were some stages between freedom to wave swastikas and total state control of your thoughts.

How violent are the societies which prohibit sunlight? The ones that immediately come to mind are China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

The US clearly has a problem with right/left violence but i don’t see how that’s a reason to shut down the Reddit Red Pill subforum.

There are far more people who are being accused of Nazism for completely unrelated reasons.

The US has a different view and allows people to march carrying swastika flags.

This ‘sunlight’ doesn’t appear to have solved the problem, and indeed it leads to violent, sometimes deadly clashes.

Censorship isn’t progress.

When men harass women attending GC meetings, they do it because they think some ideas are impure and shouldn’t be expressed.

That’s where censorship leads.

Sunlight = disinfectant. Argue with people, don’t shut them down.

Paediphilia has a clear line, albeit one that varies from country to country.

Nazis, actual Nazis, are abhorrent, but there aren’t actually that many of them. There are far more people who are being accused of Nazism for completely unrelated reasons. Y’know, like not agreeing that human beings can change sex.

How would a Nazi ban ensure only actual Nazis are banned?

I think if people are organising under the banner of the Nazis that’s enough indication that their intentions are not good. Who joins a Nazi group for quiet discussion?

Yes, it can be hard to undo disinformation. But that is the price for allowing people to express their opinions. Everything has pros and cons.
Free speech vs suppression - both come with their advantages and disadvantages.
Some people might find free speech too lenient. Others might might suppression intolerant and veering into dangerous territory.
The fact that you can criticise and question the limitations of free speech is a testament to its validity.

There will always be difficult and upsetting differences between human beings. Democratic societies function by agreeing to disagree. We might hold all sorts of objectionable beliefs and thoughts. That is not the same as acting out on those beliefs and thoughts.

Most parents who are anti-vaxxers are genuinely concerned about the safety of their children.

And a sad parent saying that their kid was fine till they got the MMR and now they are autistic will be more convincing to many than an expert with a graph.

It is hard to undo disinformation. Sometimes impossible.

“ It’s Reddit’s right to ban discussions it doesn’t want to host.”

Separate issue. I would agree whoever owns the platform should be allowed to host or not host as they please.

Should those discussions be banned full stop is a different issue.

I’m disagreeing with you.

It’s Reddit’s right to ban discussions it doesn’t want to host.

And I think that just because it could be argued that suppression of discussion about immigration led to Brexit and that yes, people need to listen outside their echo chambers, it doesn’t follow that everything should be given a platform. Nazis and paedophiles should be no-brainers.

Most parents who are anti-vaxxers are genuinely concerned about the safety of their children. Misguided they may be, but their concern is genuine.
It is vital for medical professionals and governmental agencies to regularly explain to the general public why vaccinations are important and how they are safe.
Compliance is easier and better in the long-term when it comes from a place of co-operation rather than enforcement.

Should politicians be allowed to put fake news ads on social media?
Most reasonable people would say no, but we are talking about subjective and contentious opinions in this thread, not objective facts.
If someone says 100k migrants entered the UK last year, but only 10k actually did, this means it can be objectively disproven. It is not the same as someone discussing something like 'increased migration is ruining British culture' which is a subjective opinion that can have a range of arguments for and against by different people depending on their personal outlook.

Noble “Ideas are not value-neutral. Some are dangerous.“

Of course. But I don’t want to ban the suffragettes under hate speech.

I’m not sure what your view actually is on the OP btw. It’s fine if you’re nit sure. I just feel you’re telling us off a bit and I’m not sure why.

Should people propagating anti-vaxx lies be allowed to do so when it presents a clear threat to public safety? Should politicians be allowed to put fake news ads on social media?

It is easy to spout stuff like ‘all speech should be allowed’ but then the consequences of that need to be accepted. Ideas are not value-neutral. Some are dangerous.

It’s harder to say that some things shouldn’t be tolerated. Yes it is hard to say where the line should be drawn. No, I don’t have all the answers.

noble that’s why I said it’s hard to find the line. But that’s true of any group that’s anti anything.

Discussion of people as sub human sounds like it should be shut down.
But what kind of discussion? I was terrified when
Nick Griffin went on Question Time but he lost popularity, he didn’t gain it.

And who gets to define what is legitimate discussion and what are hate-filled rantings?

Should atheists be banned from discussing topics considered blasphemous by many?

Should feminists be banned for their discussions because their ideas can be viewed as a 'threat to the family structure'?

Should homosexuals be banned from discussing their views because many would find them 'perverted' and are concerned that allowing such viewpoints to be freely aired will only embolden others?

Then you consider whether your views are more akin to legitimate discussion of immigration or the hate-filled rantings of a racist.

If the former, then the right to make your case should be protected. I’m aware this is currently being tested.

noblegiraffe what happens when your own ideas and viewpoints are considered inflammatory by those who disagree with you? What then?

I see. So a discussion forum about how a certain group of people are subhuman, full of arguments about why they are subhuman and how disgusting they are is ok, so long as there’s no proof that this forum is in any way linked to real life violence (and it has to be violence, other lesser actions don’t count) against that subgroup?

Because we have no evidence that words lead to actions ever, historically. Or that people are emboldened when they find people who agree with them.

It has always worked out just fine.

You know my answer to that question was implicit in what I had already said:

Either you are in favour of free speech (which means all speech including that you find distasteful, offensive and disagreeable) and we counter it with rational arguments or you are in favour of shutting down opinions which oppose yours. You can't have both.

I remember my student union debating whether to allow the BNP to speak - this discussion included many people who would be affect by this (BAME) the consensus was we might not like what they said but they could say it. Naturally we had security in case of violence - because that is another matter entirely. I abhore racism and pedophilia but if you believe in free speech you cant start having caveats - that is how we find ourselves in the position we are in now - i.e. cancel culture, totalitarian approaches to speech, women being thrown off twitter and female academics being accompanied by security guards. You need to really think about what free speech means to you.

So you wouldn’t ban a neo-nazi discussion forum? Or a paedophile one?

No I wouldn't ban a neo-nazi sub but I might counter it with arguments against and if it was actually inciting people to violence that becomes another matter - if there was evidence of a sub being explicitly connected to violence IRL then that would be about more than speech.

Pedophile one - see above, once it leaves the realms of talking and is connected to actual harm to another living thing then it leaves the realms of free speech.

The downside of free speech - and this is heavily connected to the policing of academics currently - is that we may not like all world views so we counter them as best we can displacing the hate with rationality and love. Once the speech spills into actual harm you are no longer championing people's right to say things but to act in a harmful way towards others (see also porn).

So in answer to your blunt question a blunt answer which is no - not for speech.

noble Paedophile isn't a valid comparison.

Neo-Nazi - erm, not sure. I'd go with "are they inciting violence" or are they discussing ideology? Are they inciting hatred? I know that's a tough line to tread.

I am in favour of free speech even if I find those subs unpleasant

So you wouldn’t ban a neo-nazi discussion forum? Or a paedophile one?

I'm confused too traceyracer. Or have the arguments won you over?