So, I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I have similar views. I’m going to skip some statements, as I can’t speak for yggstyle, only my own stance.

You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.

Yes? Harmful statements should be removed, but if there’s no explanation given, people are probably just going to roll their eyes about it.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.

Content moderation is simply the removal of rule-breaking content. Xitter removing Musk hate is content moderation, but not an opposition to harmful views. In order to actually oppose said views, a site needs to be more transparent about what a harmful view is and be able to say how removed comments are harmful.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.

There’s a difference between platforming hate speech and letting people fuck up without immediately banning them. I was raised christofascist, and the only reason I was able to change my mind is because people engaged with me about why it was harmful to trust my family. If I’d just had content removed for opaque reasons, with zero explanation as to what I’d done wrong and didn’t respond to questions about why it was wrong, I wouldn’t’ve had a reason to distrust my family. Your approach also actually reduces genuine dialogue.

You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”

Again, education isn’t the same as platforming something. If somebody genuinely doesn’t understand why arson is bad, I absolutely want to teach them why and not just tell them to get lost.

but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.

The limit of “so long as they do not encroach on the freedoms of others” means it’s not absolute freedom of speech though?