If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you’ll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don’t think they’d have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
Surely we aren’t striving for quantity over quality. Because that’s where this sorta leads
That’s exactly the idea. The process of rational discussion and consideration is supposed to take care of the quality.
Obviously this was before the birth of the internet, and also before the birth of the think tank :l
Maybe there should be quality criteria for what constitutes an idea worth discussing. Not every social media post is an idea.
I agree. And criteria for the moderators too of course.