https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for...
Almost anyone would agree that a platform which allows any speech at all is a 'free speech platform' even if they don't agree with allowing certain kinds of speech.
Most people would agree a platform that allows any speech outside of socially accepted exceptions (e.g. threats of violence, slander) is a 'free speech platform'.
But for people who are largely not allowed to share their views (rightly or wrongly) a platform which is heavily moderated for ideological conformity can also be a 'free speech platform' if they agree with the ideology, because they are free to speak all the speech they want to speak and are prevented from doing on other platforms. It's pretty clear that Parler falls into this category.
I guess the point I was trying to make is whether or not Parler is moderated to me seems irrelevant to the permissibility of this action.
How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read.
Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
[1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.
There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”.
If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
(Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
The US has always had limits on free speech.
> Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.
