In 2022 you have the choice of a) "suppressing free speech" or b) "platforming racists" and there is no middle ground and no way to win. You can't pass the buck to moderators.
The choice did not feel so stark in 2005.
In 2022 you have the choice of a) "suppressing free speech" or b) "platforming racists"
Nobody argues that reddit is constitutionally bound to host free speech. The point is that what's right in a public forum is also right for a company. You appear to be focusing on an irrelevant technicality or parroting the "they can build their own Twitter" defence, but neither of those is relevant here, the only point being made is that free (independent of constitutional obligation) speech is good, and should be broadly supported by platforms
I don’t think we’ve established that, and I’m fairly confident that the ACLU doesn’t think so either for that matter.
If corporate speech, or individual speech had to embrace all viewpoints without restriction it would cease to be independent at all wouldn’t it? In other words, protecting the right of individuals to express the viewpoints they choose to is in fact the more democratic ideal isn’t it?
Separately, please refrain from speculation about what I or others _appear_ to be saying. If I intend to say something I have no problem doing so.
The major problem with most internet platforms is the boundaries and user controls are non existent. Everything is open for everyone to see and no one can control who is in their network. Only a handful of moderators and platforms have control over both visibility and membership/rules, and those controls are limited and primitive.
Feeds which magically select content users are supposed to like and the attempt to eliminate user settings to make platforms more accessible and magical contribute to this problem. Creating effective and easy to use self moderating tools is a difficult enough problem on its own; when you also have to fight a lot of entrenched design philosophy, it's even harder.
That's not a solution in the cases when those people, are using the platform to gather a group of angry people and then will go and kill you and your family and those who look like you.
Now, I'm guessing this isn't a problem in _your_ case -- but it is, for some others (see e.g. FB and Myanmar, or WhatsApp lynch mobs).
Another problem is when the one's you don't want to hear, are spreading propaganda supporting a want-to-be-dictaor. And then eventually they succeed, because those who didn't like the dictator, just ignored them (let them spread the propaganda unhindered). -- What's the likelihood that the US is still a democracy in 30 years. (Btw I didn't downvote your comment)
Is a two party system backed by billions, elaborate social media timelines (from experts of sociology, psychology, K street, and NGOs) even close to a democracy at this point in time?
Regards of which hand you consider the correct one, we have deeply flawed versions of the world being marketed and sold at unprecedented scale and scope.
Imagine if you worked for a company and every 4 years workers voted to keep or replace them. What if the companies main customer had a controlling vote?
/rant
I'm not saying self moderation would eliminate bad groups. I think it would better contain them. I think having more siloed, fragmented, and naturally evolving online ecosystems would prevent any of the problems you mention from spilling over and infecting the entire culture.
I don't think any of those risks you mentioned are solved by centralized moderation. I think they're made worse, as everyone becomes incentivized to fight for control of moderation and is pulled towards ousting the other to recreate the groups those in power naturally feel most comfortable with. I firmly believe the social dilemma people are currently in is a result of the entire world trying to make rules for one big room, and no one is happy because people come from vastly different contexts that could never be properly accounted for in one room and one set of rules.
Allowing people to make their own decisions about association and information is far more scalable, democratic, and corruption resistant than trying to make platforms that appeal to all and respect all people from top down moderation. It allows people to let off steam privately and meet in designated rooms in the middle. That may seem terrifying given some of the people and groups out there. But I think recent history is a pretty good indicator that trying to forcibly educate and moderate people that are deemed a problem backfires severely. Malicious and violent groups can and should be contained and watched by others, but trying to prevent association and people deciding whats good and whats bad for themselves drives more people to opposition and affiliation with potentially violent groups than they would otherwise associate with. If people are able to express certain ideas without being automatically ousted from certain groups and affiliated with extremists, that lessens the pull to extremism.
There is no perfect solution, and I do not think that every forum should avoid top down moderation or that certain associations shouldn't be watched or potentially dealt with in the real world if dangerous enough. I just think more user directed moderation is in general the least worst option.
What's worse: a group spreading messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people made up of those who voluntarily choose that group over others in a world where other groups can counter message and organize and defend themselves, or a group that controls global messaging encouraging mobs to go out and kill people and bans all counter messaging?
What's worse: propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading in a forum of voluntarily associated zealots which bans and ignores criticism, but has no power over alternative group organization, or propaganda supporting a want to be dictator spreading on a global platform that bans and ignores criticism of all other groups?
There are definitely approved forms of bigotry that are tolerated on just about every social media platform. I’ve never seen a post promoting death to unvaccinated moderated, for example. I really hate the idea that because a site has racist users that it would be considered a racist platform. That’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
On sites like reddit, I can ignore hateful subreddits just as easily as other topics I’m not interested in. I don’t think it’s reasonable that there is an expectation that every platform police everything that might offend someone and I don’t know of any platform that attempts to. Certain bigotry is just less tolerated by admins than others.
r/conspiracy is an interesting example. Opposing views on just about any topic are accepted and there’s genuinely a lot of critical thinking and research that goes into many of the comments. Sure it’s filled with crap posts, loonies, and paranoids, but constructive, respectful discussion is had about topics considered too taboo for most other subreddits. And they are maligned by most of Reddit to the point where certain subs will ban you just for subscribing or posting to it.
Disclaimer: of course racism is awful and stupid. I’m not advocating promoting racists or misogynists or any other hate group. I just think the benefits of open, free discussion out way the drawbacks of hateful, stupid discussion.
Sadly, what passes for moderation at most places nowadays is even worse. It's hideous and stifling. If the cranks make places too annoying to stay at, woke moderation makes places feel pointless to participate in.