There are folks out there that believe some level of content moderation is useful, and I’d like to understand their argument. If my conclusion is that it’s not robust, so be it.
But let’s run a thought experiment. Let’s say an idea shows up on Twitter that Asian people are ruining the US. It spreads and gains attention. People start killing, and citing the Twitter misinformation as a key motivator. Can the vast majority of society not agree that 1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful. And therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content?
I'd agree with "1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful", but not "therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content".
If your definition of harmful boils down to "results in people getting killed", then: ban fossil fuel advertisements; ban advertisements for the military or content that glorifies militarism; ban any content that encourages people to over-consume energy and resources.
But we know this won't happen, because what we consider "harmful" is distorted by living within an inherently harmful society -- namely, a civilization based on violence, exploitation, and extraction.
The examples you’ve provided are very complex multi-dimensional topics.
The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples.
Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?
We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted.
On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm from phone addiction. Maybe in 30 years we’ll ban iPhone advertisements.
Like I said in another comment, I’d rather we deal with the underlying conditions which may lead to harm, than try to suppress ideas.
So you fundamentally agree that if we have social consensus, it’s totally OK to prevent the spread of ideas or messages (“speech”) as we have done with cigarettes? That was my entire question, to the folks who argue that there is never ever a reason to restrict speech.
I too think that we should address underlying issues, but if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?
I think banning tobacco ads is not the same situation because the entities behind them are corporations. The corporations mislead the public for decades in order to get people addicted, purely for profit. The public harm done was a negative externality of their business model. I'm in favor of regulating corporations. (I don't think there should be any advertising, anyway)
If we're talking about banning speech that is critical about a medical intervention, or even banning ideas that disagree with a social consensus, that's different territory. Doctors and others aren't speaking out because they want to mislead the public, or in order to profit.
> if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?
Well, I've seen no indication that we're dealing with underlying issues. For instance, if you truly want to restore trust in institutions, it's counterproductive to shut down public discussions that are critical of those institutions...
That is a bogus argument. 1) Killing people is already a criminal act; 2) There are some people killing/beating people up with the slightest impetus. They will find that impetus whether Twitter allows people to discuss anything negative about the CCP; 3) Do you really want the speech of everyone to be regulated on the basis of the excuses used by psycho-killers?
Do you think Jodie Foster should have been banned from appearing in movies?
Update: And, just in time, this shows up[1,2]:
> Tech firm LinkedIn has censored the profile of US journalist Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian[3] in China, inviting her to “update” content without specifying what triggered the block.
Ah! She wrote a book about China[4].
Can't allow that! What if some random person becomes too critical of the CCP and assaults a random Asian-American in San Fransisco?[5]
But let’s run a thought experiment. Let’s say an idea shows up on Twitter that Asian people are ruining the US. It spreads and gains attention. People start killing, and citing the Twitter misinformation as a key motivator. Can the vast majority of society not agree that 1) this is a harmful idea and 2) reasonable people agree it is harmful. And therefore Twitter has a responsibility to remove that content?