But these platforms are owned by these companies.
What rules do we put in place that they have to host some of this content? Blatant misinformation, vague encouragement of violence... hate?
Is the price of free speech that someone has to host it? Who doesn't want to?
Why do they have to be rules? Why can't we have a culture of tolerance? Robots aren't running these companies. They're people, just like you and me. They can choose to be tolerant.
Tolerance is about tolerating the most horrid things. Not because it's nice or those things have some value. They're horrid, they have no value. It's because the alternative is worse. Because censorship is worse. Because when a person is censored, when they can't speak, they resort to violence and through censorship, you encourage violence. And violence can't be censored. It can only be suppressed with further violence.
What does that mean exactly? By that you mean you require someone host, intolerance?
Is it a "culture of tolerance" if someone spews hate on me on a social media platform because of my race, because we're tolerating that?
I'm still trying to figure out what folks think this alternate choice looks like... do we require people to host whatever gets posted?
Anything that’s not harassment, a direct threat or direct call to violence should be allowed.
To your example, if someone attacks you personally then that would count as harassment and be moderated out.
Let's say I have a platform that let's people comment, so outside of direct harassment I shouldn't be allowed to delete things?
Is your platform as large as Twitter, is it one of the main communication platforms in society, does it allow users to wield social and political influence? Is it a proverbial public square?
If so, then in my view a wise and emotionally mature person would elect not to censor opinions, realizing that there are more important things at stake than hurt feelings.
Of course I might be wrong when claiming that censoring opinions and mandating a specific morality will lead to more conflict (see another comment I made in this thread for more on that). Maybe it won't. I guess we'll find out in the next decade or so.
No it isn’t. No society survives if it is tolerant without limit. You are arguing that anything and everything should be allowed. No laws, no justice.
I suppose it is a valid position to have but I don’t think a practical one over the long term if you want to be alive.
But that doesn't actually happen in the vast majority of cases. Most people try other outlets. If there are no other outlets available, then they tend to give up. Deplatforming has been shown to work.
And it's worth remembering that going violent means putting their life at high risk. Their family at risk. Their possessions and personal freedom at risk. And it means hurting other people. There's fortunately not many people willing to take that step and pay that price.
Just think about what would cause more violence: banning all nazis from Twitter? Or allowing nazis free reign to talk about how horrible minorities are, and what they'd like to do to them?
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.[1]
If you haven't read Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" then I'd suggest you do.
> If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
I think it's safe to say that the extent of censorship perpetrated by the big tech is not limited to the voices that teach others to "answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols". They of course ban some of that too, but they ban quite a lot more.
The real paradox of the paradox of tolerance is how many people use Popper quotes to rationalize their own intolerance for people with differing ideas, without any awareness that Popper was speaking only of intolerance for people who resort to violence.
And yeah, I have read Popper as well as Wikipedia. Saying "it's not accurate" isn't accurate.
Big difference.
I copied and pasted the entirety of the top section of Wikipedia with no editing. That section says "if a society is tolerant without limit" (my emphasis) which goes to your point that there is a threshold here.