Liked An Avalanche of Speech Can Bury Democracy (POLITICO Magazine)
It’s not speech per se that allows democracies to function, but the ability to agree—eventually, at least some of the time—on what is true, what is important and what serves the public good. This doesn’t mean everyone must agree on every fact, or that our priorities are necessarily uniform. But democracy can’t operate completely unmoored from a common ground, and certainly not in a sea of distractions.
via Mike Caulfield
Replied to Too Long; Didn’t Read #161 (W. Ian O'Byrne)
This raises broader questions about hate speech, freedom of speech, and rights online. I hinted at some of the questions I’ve been having about this topic several months ago in TL;DR. Should there be a “terms of service” for freedom of speech? Also, should we require that tech companies be the ones to dictate and enforce these freedoms. I’m still not sure.
Ian, this is such a challenging situation. People like Quinn Norton argue for engagement, while others argue that bigotry should be banned. I think that my initial response is to ban the liars and bigots, but the conundrum that was pointed out to me recently is that if you deny the voice of a particular few they will most likely find their own space somewhere else.

I found this podcast on ‘free speech’ intriguing:

It is always more complicated than we want it to be I guess.