I think this much is now obvious. Unrestricted free speech, particularly of the kind that's backed by a commercial or political agenda, is not leading us to some idealised view of a marketplace of ideas, but a torrent of bullshit where the loudest voices are often heeded regardless of merit. Many people are not seeking to find the best ideas, they are seeking tribal identity and ego reinforcement.
> I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we'll have learned something.
This seems ... counter intuitive. I wouldn't expect that, should society tear itself apart over such things, any significant proportion of people will learn anything much from it.
> If we give up our values, we'll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself.
Why is "allowing motivated bad actors to destroy our society" one of "our" values?
We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc), I would expect over time, and as new forms of speech arise, that those boundaries shift around.
What I find absurd is the absolutist position - if trolls aren't allowed to spew the most vile hatred on all social media with no comeback and no removal, shadowing, anything, we've lost our freedom! All moderation is censorship!
None of this is an argument for government censorship, but the ideals of a marketplace of ideas leading to advancement and intellectual progress, all fuelled by free speech, seem (to me) as busted as the idea that evolution necessarily causes advancement - the natural environment doesn't optimise for progress, but procreation. I think it's time to acknowledge that speech is subject to similar forces.