I would have a lot more respect for this if they at least tried to recognize that the genuine concerns about unlimited free speech. Almost every government recognizes threats as not being protected. Libel and slander are also generally not allowed. Some kinds of pornography are considered by large numbers as beyond the pale.<p>Making universal declarations is easy but not very useful. Real work is done by grappling with the actual limitations. I'd have a lot more respect for a maximalist position that at least understood why some people legitimately reject that position, and not just because they're stinky meanie snowflake boo-boos.<p>Without that I expect governments to say "thank you for your unrealistic statement, we'll now ignore it and implement whatever we feel like because you're not saying anything to engage with."
Governments asking or suggesting that media companies suppress a story, with the companies choosing to comply of their own free will, is nothing new. This is how most media censorship in the US and UK worked during WW2. Governments would explain to a newspaper or broadcast company that suppressing a story was in earnest best interest of the nation and the media company would usually comply voluntarily because they felt it was the right thing to do. There's a good argument to be made that this kind of thing <i>really is</i> good and proper; the government asking newspapers to stay quiet about D-Day preparations, and newspapers voluntarily complying, probably saved <i>many</i> lives.<p>But I'm worried. I fear that governments flexing this kind of soft power over media companies now in recent years is a sign of the times. I am afraid that governments see major wars on the horizon and that's why they're dusting off their old bag of tricks and asking the new tech sort of media companies to get ready to respond to censorship requests when the time comes. So it's not the wartime suppression of information that worries me the most, but rather the upcoming war it hints at.<p>Edit: If anybody can talk me down from this fear, I would sincerely appreciate it.
There's a difference between 'etiquette' and being threatened with being banned from a site for not using 'sensitive topic' features ...particularly for factual statements.<p>Are social media sites part of the CIC? To what extent should we choose to censor ourselves 'out of consideration' to others? Today seems like a timely time to have this discussion.
> The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly protected under the law.<p>That amendment includes the right to freedom of association as well as the aforementioned freedom of the press, which are <i>precisely</i> the freedoms platforms use to choose who is on them. The freedom to speak one's mind and Reddit's freedom to not transit that speech are the same amendment.
The article complains about misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and other ill-defined terms being used to censor speech.<p>The opposition to this and the indifference of the population generally suggests the age of free speech is over.<p>These conversations get mired in debate over free speech maximalism or what is disinformation. I think that's besides the point.<p>Perhaps a better question would be when is it okay to suppress speech. On what basis do we measure and catalog harmful speech or disinformation.<p>I can see some, like speech calling for violence against certain groups. But that's already illegal. What about when government goes outside established frameworks to also protect 'truth' from disinformation or catalogs some opinions as harmful.<p>I'm religious, I believe in ultimate truths, so I have ideas of misinformation and disinformation.<p>But our governments today are secular. They don't believe in ultimate truths - so on what basis can they claim something is disinfo or misinformation and suppress it?<p>When we say harmful info or discourse - harmful to who. I haven't been hurt, I don't know anyone who has. I do however see governments and corporations being harmed by speech online.<p>Isn't the real issue that there is a new medium the internet that lets ordinary people speak freely and this is very uncomfortable for the political and business elites and they wish to suppress that.<p>Isn't the question not really about free speech but more about how much control can States exercise over channels of public communications before they can reasonably be called tyrannical?