By what metric has it worked well?
As I see it, online communication is more like de-humanised, context-free access to singular statements on a topic. As such, it does not equate to "people communicating freely".
As I see it, online communication is more like de-humanised, context-free access to singular statements on a topic. As such, it does not equate to "people communicating freely".
That said, social media is not free communication.
Yeah, I don't like how people choose to communicate on the internet either. But that doesn't make it "not free speech."
A large part of how human settle on opinions and beliefs is by inference from what and how often is said around them, calibrated around in-person interactions.
Social media warp this horribly both through algorithmically selecting what information to present users with, and through impersonal "big account->user" that remove the stakes normally present in in-person communication, which completely breaks our perception of how important statements actually are.
I didn't say that. My point is that you need to tolerate "deleterious speech" in a democracy.
If you disagree, you should just admit that you don't believe in democracy. Which is a perfectly respectable position.
Why? You can have a democracy without the right to free speech.