Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

I find something deeply satisfying about the idea of someone generalizing 333-million people in one comment, using the word "fetishizing" to describe their view of a principle which has generally been regarded as essential to the vast majority of advances in human rights anywhere progress has been made, and while commenting thusly has done so all in the service of making the central point that it is they who overly-value free speech.

> Group b folks, such as myself, are not saying that we're concerned about dinner conversations. We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.

So public speech should be further limited, provided La Résistance is still permitted to speak freely as we enter an era with an ever-increasing number of state-aligned location-aware microphones in homes, workplaces, vehicles, pockets and (on) wrists?

What could possibly go wrong in that scenario?

Honestly, I don't think there is one. The problem with A is that it will lead to violence, anarchy, or brutal dictatorship if left completely unchecked and certain groups start to counter (verbal) arguments with death threats and violence.

There is a school of thought that says that a free society has to accept this and basically live with the fact that it's constantly in danger due to this.

But even this school of thought has one fatal flaw - its proponents lacked the information that we have now. Social media enabled psychological mechanisms that prior to its inception and widespread use were really hard to trigger.

In the 20th century, mobilising the masses was hard work and required a lot of resources (printing was expensive, organising large rallies to reach many people was expensive and dangerous, ...)

Today, everybody can - even without owning a smartphone or a computer or having internet access - reach literally billions via social media (e.g. by using an internet café). A single Facebook post or Whatsapp message can lead to riots and mobs that kill people [1].

These are means of communications and psychological effects that are simply unprecedented in human history. We opened Pandora's Box without even realising it.

When the US constitution was written, no one had social media in mind when they wrote about free speech. The very concept that a single man could within the blink of an eye spread their message to half of mankind, unchecked, without any immediate consequences, completely anonymously was just unthinkable.

The amplifying effect of digital echo chambers that suppress dissenting thought and nip constructive discourse in the bud, was yet unknown. FOMO and social media addiction didn't even enter the scientific community until just five or so years ago.

It's a really complex and difficult problem and I would love to see some constructive discussion about what to do with it (especially in the mainstream media) - preferably without reducing it to an unfruitful us-vs-them.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/21/how-misin...