The problem is that once you have that loophole in the ideals of free speech, people start calling everyone they disagree with "intolerant" in order to feel good about themselves while shutting down the speech of people who disagree with them.
> you cannot argue in good faith with someone who does not.
But the solution shouldn't be to shut down the discussion by banning the other side, because then you just have two sides who fight dirty.
One side refuses to see reason and understand arguments, the other uses shaming, coercion, and censorship in place of the arguments. If the truth is on your side, you shouldn't resort to that.
This is a terrible idea. Who are you to stop other people from providing for their family?
Besides, rich people have options. Wouldn't they just move their families and their wealth to a country that's not going to rob them?
Countries with human rights, freedom, and capitalism attract capable and talented people. Countries that restrict freedoms and take away people's stuff motivate the most capable and talented people to escape, and are left with people who have no better options.
Countries can stop people from escaping by force, but is that a kind of place you'd like to live in?
For the same reason all the orthodox authoritarian ideologies are disturbing. Why would I want to join an online discussion forum where free thought isn't welcome?
Having "leftist" in the description makes people (at least myself) automatically jump to the conclusion that one can get cancelled/banned/deplatformed for posting any thought or argument that disagrees with the mainstream. I'm not a conservative or anti-vaxxer or anything like that, but this culture really creeps me out.
Also in the About page the author of the software says things like:
> [Reddit's] libertarian founders have allowed some of the most racist and sexist online communities to fester on reddit for years
(Implying that this community wouldn't permit certain types of discussion, defined by very broad and ambiguous terms that were weaponized such that they can be used against anyone who disagrees with the leftist ideology in any way).
And criticizes reddit for being:
> liberal, and pro-US, not left (leftism referring to the broad category of anti-capitalism)
I wouldn't be comfortable with participating in a discussion moderated by a person who says things like that.
Also, as a person who grew up in a country ruined by "anti-capitalism", I find that trend in American culture extremely disturbing. Can you think of any anti-capitalist country (now, or at any point in history) that you'd like to live in?
Luckily this is a free software and anyone is free to run their own instance.
Politics aside - I wonder if it would be possible to create an instance focused on free speech, without automatically attracting all the worst people?
> I contend that the expansion primarily reflects an ever-increasing sensitivity to harm
Or maybe once you've weaponized a concept, it's tempting to use it as much as you can.
When being a nerd stopped being shameful and started being cool, all the cool kids started calling themselves nerds for liking Avengers and Harry Potter - why wouldn't you claim the social points that are just lying around?
And when you live in a society that rewards victimhood, when calling someone a bully gives you power over them - of course people will jump at any chance to call themselves a victim.
> For adults, I agree. But this is squarely aimed at kids and they haven't got the life experience to see these problems coming or deal with them appropriately.
By the same logic, YCombinator is "exploiting our free labor" through Hacker News. People write thoughtful comments, get nothing in return, and YC benefits from free publicity. Same for facebook posts, instagram, reddit, and every business that benefits from community and network effects.
Same for every video game that allows mods, custom levels, and so on. The only difference is that Minecraft users make no money at all for their efforts. How terrible! Poor children!
Either that, or people just enjoy being creative, making things is fun, and it's okay for kids to just enjoy making things and sharing them with each other, even if (oh, gasp!) the business that built the engine benefits from it. And being able to make any money from this at all is just a nice bonus.
What's with all the cynicism and negativity in this thread?
Jeff Bezos launches a rocket - it's not impressive enough of a technological breakthrough for people who watch and judge from the sidelines. Jeff Bezos isn't using his money right.
Elon Musk spends his money taking moonshots and succeeding a lot of the time, announces that he's working on an extremely exciting science-fiction-level technology - it's not realistic enough, he's sure to fail this time.
It's like there's 1% of people who are trying to take advantage of the amazing time we're living in, working hard, often succeeding, making things and getting things done. And everyone else just watches, judges, complains, and tries to score some points by dismissing the achievements of others. Surely if THEY had the intelligence and discipline to spend decades building businesses and make billions of dollars, THEY would have spent all that hypothetical money better.
What does a person have to do to impress you people? What happened to the culture of respecting and encouraging human achievement in America, to optimism about the future?
> Except for the people that are unable to get it due to a medical condition. Or unable to get it because they're too young. Or able to get it but it didn't work for them.
> Of course, such people are welcome to not interact with the rest of society.
People who's bodies are at risk are free to avoid participating in society. Being sick sucks, but doesn't give you the right to force others to do medical procedures in order to protect you.
Yes, in our world, participating in society is often mandatory, and not a choice that you can make. That equally applies to people who are sick, and to the people who don't want to be forced to have things done to their body against their will.
There are many communicable diseases, and many things healthy people can be forced to do in order to protect the sick. The choice whether or not to force them is a tradeoff - safety for the society versus freedom for the individual.
People who value individual freedom more than they value safety are simply making a different tradeoff than you do. At some point, a society designed to minimize the risk at the expense of human freedoms becomes a nightmare to live in.
For example, we could significantly reduce the risk of rapes and murders (especially of vulnerable people) by forcing everyone to wear a bodycam and an ankle bracelet. We don't do that because we have decided that this is not a tradeoff worth making.
On the other hand, we did decide to reduce the risk of people dying from drunk driving, we have sacrificed our freedom to drink and drive for the sake of the safety of the other people on the road.
My point is, where you draw the line is a question of your values. Neither side is being "dumb" or "selfish". Some people value social prosperity and safety and are willing to sacrifice their (and other people's) freedoms to increase it. Others value individual rights and freedoms, and are willing to accept some risks and sacrifice some safety in order to not have these rights taken away.
Society without freedoms is better able to protect the vulnerable, and also the life in such society is less worth living.
> The scale at which Google operates today, anything short of defining some of its popular products as public utilities would be disingenuous.
Look at that from the perspective of a startup founder. You've made a thing. Spent decades working on it. It became popular because many people found it useful. So useful in fact, that they've decided that it would be nice if you didn't own it anymore, and they owned it instead.
Laws should be the same for everyone. If you're not okay with other people deciding that they own your stuff, don't tell others what to do with the things they've created.
What makes the situation worse is that there's a huge stigma/taboo against learning the social skills, especially for guys.
If you want to go on a diet, there are countless books/journals/courses that will help you out. If you want to exercise, or learn to draw, or to play chess, or any other skill, there's abundance of support and information.
But if you're nerdy and socially awkward, it's hard to get any mentorship/support without being labeled a creep. You're on your own, you either have to "get" it naturally (by having good parents, happy childhood, etc), or be shamed into staying away from the attractive and socially well-adjusted people.
Some of the most life-changing learning resources I've ever encountered (like RSD) are very difficult to recommend to people, so it's harder to help out the guys who are struggling the way I used to.