psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
There is not and there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech. Speech that is (falsely) defamatory, threatens harm or incites others to commit harm has always been unlawful and rightfully so.I was a 'free speech absolutist' of sorts.
But the effects of social media has made me rethink my position.
The technology has made it possible to radicalise or dupe pockets of extremists. case in point: antivaxers are having a real impact on herd immunity and measles are making a comeback. There are enough idiots to make flat earth believers a thing.
Likewise, extremist groups can radicalise small groups and spur them to violent action. I don't think these ideas can spread beyond a fringe group, bot OTOH these fringe groups can be dangerous.
Just look what the Russian FSB have managed to accomplish in terms of stoking divisions.
If I was running a big social platform, I'd be very concerned that my platform would be instrumental in the next church bombing or mosque shooting.
Social media has changed the game and I'm afraid we must adjust.
But you now want to extend limitations on free speech so that they extend to mere opinions. This is not acceptable.
Your antivaxer example is a poor one. Once these views started getting popular, they were rebutted in the mainstream media. The end result of this kookiness, the public know more about the benefits and need for vaccination than ever before. They are also better equipped to deal with nonsensical claims about vaccination.
Your belief that we should now restrict the freedom of opinions lest the terrorists react violently is a terrifying one. Their aim is to cause fear and dissent throughout the world and curbing freedoms is one way to hand victory over to them. They must never win.
