• blueryth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The problem playing devil’s advocate is you’re defending the devil. Running to the all or nothing edge is simply an attempt to end the discussion. “If Nazis can’t have privacy, nobody can.” There is an in-between, and conveniently it’s called moderation.

    Are we equally of the opinion that hate speech should not be moderated? Are threats without action to be defended unilaterally? It’s not important what the answers are, it’s that there is a world in between absolutist ideals. There are alternatives. We can discuss them.

    Companies are also capable of navigating this space, and should be responsible for doing so if they are entitled to their platform. The idea that their hands are tied to all or nothing is ignorant if not apologist. If the best you can do with 10’s of millions of dollars is helplessness, perhaps you deserve all the criticism. The devil needs better attorneys.

    • notgold@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Moderation and discussion are 100% the way to go. For companies to decide who they can and cant dox though seems hard. We all have something about us that others don’t agree with and someone could justify you being doxed. Nazis went through the Nuremberg trials to decide their levels of Nazism and there aren’t many that agree with the results. I’m not saying it’s right to protect Nazi’s (most deserve a punch in the fafe) but when anyone can label anyone else as a nazi, policing this is difficult.