I wonder if these people also consider banning child porn censorship. Or removing ISIS recruitment videos. Where's the line? Should absolutely everything be allowed? Should someone recruiting people to attack the Capitol be allowed too? Or doxxing Twitter employees as you mention? Clearly a line exists somewhere as my first two examples, I'd hope most people would be okay with those being taken down, but somehow this line is not okay?
Thing is, if we give up on these people like this, we help radicalize them. This is a platform that was created specifically for people that were kicked out. If we keep taking their platform they will keep getting angrier.
If there is a solution to this, it involves empathy and honest engagement. Not banning and blocking, at least not of the rank and file people.
This high minded woo woo bullshit is intended to be accepted as a “good faith” devil’s advocate argument, except it fails to address the following:
Watching these “patriots” trying to interrupt and attack the democratic process with such blatant, selfish contempt on live television was a breaking point/ wake up call for the majority of morally decent Americans.
The cultural zeitgeist has decided that a line has been crossed and therefore: a stand must be made, and action must be taken.
Because of the way time works, we simply cannot afford the luxury (privilege) of trying to “rehabilitate” these people _at the current moment_.
You don’t get any points for giving these people the benefit of the doubt and/or confusing what’s occurring right now as a “teachable moment”.
The fact that these people can guilt trip you into believing that they should be treated with empathy is 100% irrefutable proof that you, personally, have been conned.
I understand that these actions are obviously not 100% perfect and sustainable, but until we’ve reached a modicum of sensible tech regulation standards, I would take imperfect action over no action at all.
When the expression of speech causes harm, then the line is drawn. This is the general interpretation ranging from SCOTUS to free speech philosophers like John Stuart Mill.
