• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    But you can’t keep out the second group unless you compromise your principles as a member of the first group.

    The thing is that you don’t need to and shouldn’t “keep them out”. What you should do is just let people ignore/block/mute them.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How do you prevent such a platform to turn into an environment that is actively hostile towards the people they “nicely discuss” should be dead / subjugated / tortured / etc.?

      Or do you think it is okay to drive out certain types of people? How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You let people self moderate. Once you block a user you don’t see them anymore.

        How is that still considered “free speech” if those people’s voices will be completely missing from the platform?

        It’s free speech because they’re allowed to post there. Them choosing not to because they can’t handle other people being allowed to exercise their free speech is a them problem, not the platforms problem.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Considering the original movement for free speech it is rather cynical to think it’s freedom to silence people. But that’s what people are doing when they create an environment that is so hostile towards certain groups of people that these people won’t participate. Freedom to communicate hate speech is creating an echo chamber, not a free speech platform.