Popper's paradox of tolerance is a thing, we can't tolerate actual ____ who would silence everybody in the name of 'openness'.
"Authoritarian" is what fits best here. It's what you call people who give up on convincing you and start coercing you.
Society shouldn't tolerate those who would damage our society's foundation and ultimate safety valve of Free Speech, particularly if they do it in the name of 'openness'.
The far left in the tech industry has control of speech in a way that's pretty novel, and they need to be more careful and less righteous.
The novelty is important. It's intellectually dishonest to use the time lag of laws catching up, particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge.
That's a uselessly broad definition of authoritarian.
It transforms any situation in which someone does have authority -- even domain limited authority -- to make a call without unanimity into an authoritarian one.
If that's what authoritarianism was, every parent, teacher, property owner (and therefore business), employer, and manager would be one.
It would make law itself authoritarian.
> particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge.
Can you be more specific about an instance of damage to discourse? If it's huge, presumably it's easy to argue some high visibility cases where key valuable concepts that would be carried in discourse have become scarcely available.
And presumably, there'd be a case that these key valuable concepts aren't subject to any of the traditional philosophical limits on free speech (which as broadly respected as it is, has, like most of the law, not been absolute).
One might even expect the damaged areas of discourse to be manifestly more valuable to the point where compelled participation on the part of tech companies in sustaining them seems reasonable.
"Authoritarian" is what fits best here. It's what you call people who give up on convincing you and start coercing you.
Society shouldn't tolerate those who would damage our society's foundation and ultimate safety valve of Free Speech, particularly if they do it in the name of 'openness'.
The far left in the tech industry has control of speech in a way that's pretty novel, and they need to be more careful and less righteous.
The novelty is important. It's intellectually dishonest to use the time lag of laws catching up, particularly when the potential damage to discourse and society is so huge.