I think you are conflating enforcing rules with arbitrary rules.
given that there are literally streets with it on[1] I doubt its a bannable offense. plus, you'd expect that to be filtered out at the very start. Plus if they adhere to their escalations then it wouldn't result in a ban.
Hopping onto your wider point, Facebook et al are cesspools because they _don't_ enforce the rules well enough. if you look at Facebook's code of conduct, its actually really good. Readable, simple & comprehensive. (go read it, i promise you its good.)
the problem is, its not being enforced evenly. Us mortals only get automoderated. Popular posts (5m+ views, I imagine) will get the overworked human treatment. Politicians will be given free reign, because of reasons that are not immediately obvious.
> If this sounds far-fetched you're probably exhibiting the near sighted "if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear" fallacious thinking (or coping mechanism).
I have lots to hide, and a boat load more to fear. Again you are mixing in issues here that should be separate. Yes, I as a singular citizen should be able to hold any opinion I wish. I should be allowed to speak about it. Should that be free from consequences? In all but clearly laid out cases, yes. Should I be able to force that opinion or content onto someone else? no.
In the US, you are more or less allowed to say what you like, but I, crucially don't have to agree, or indeed agree to broadcast your opinion(whether you like it or not, a forum is a broadcast by a third party).
I am crucially aware that _true_ freedom of speech has never existed. I do not like that single corporations are given such power to censor things at will without oversight, but that's just newspapers and TV. That's before we get onto "fighting words" and the like.
I want people to be able to say most things all of the time. The issue we have with online/text discourse is that its really simple to bully people without consequences. Society does not work if there are no consequences for actions that cause harm and injury.
Do I want to curtail freedom of speech? no. do I want china style censorship? no. Do I want a multiplicity of services to cater to the wide range of thought and speech? yes. Should everyone be forced to carry all opinions regardless of impact or outcome? no.
> given that there are literally streets with it on[1] I doubt its a bannable offense. plus, you'd expect that to be filtered out at the very start. Plus if they adhere to their escalations then it wouldn't result in a ban.
Here in Atlanta, Georgia USA they're already changing street names that are deemed offensive [1]. Sometimes these are family names that were made famous by a historical figure tied to a "bad" thing but sometimes it's an English phrase where the implications are bad. I would be wary of general purpose words like Kaiser that make people think of "bad" things as those are also open to scrutiny.
In that article the streets being renamed are "Confederate <Something>". Clearly named after the Confederacy itself and not after people. Though they talk about possibly renaming streets named after people like Robert E. Lee or Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) later.
And an important clarification. To quote you:
> Sometimes these are family names that were made famous by a historical figure tied to a "bad" thing
These aren't streets that happened to share a name with these men, these were streets named for these men. The former (what you imply) is far less defensible (I'd say indefensible in general), but is not what is being discussed in your article. If you have another source where some non-Robert E. Lee named street is being renamed because it has the name "Lee" that would be a better example of what you're talking about.
Of course when the history of a name can be directly attributed to a bad person then it will be attacked but what happens when the history is less clear? Will assumptions be made?
Probably, but people can at least defend it, "This is named after John Lee, the 3rd mayor of the town from 1784. It is not named after Robert E. Lee and we can show you the street on a town map from before Robert E. Lee was even born." But your argument would still be better if you could show an example of that kind of issue, and not a hypothetical about it. Your article did not demonstrate what you are talking about here.
given that there are literally streets with it on[1] I doubt its a bannable offense. plus, you'd expect that to be filtered out at the very start. Plus if they adhere to their escalations then it wouldn't result in a ban.
Hopping onto your wider point, Facebook et al are cesspools because they _don't_ enforce the rules well enough. if you look at Facebook's code of conduct, its actually really good. Readable, simple & comprehensive. (go read it, i promise you its good.)
the problem is, its not being enforced evenly. Us mortals only get automoderated. Popular posts (5m+ views, I imagine) will get the overworked human treatment. Politicians will be given free reign, because of reasons that are not immediately obvious.
> If this sounds far-fetched you're probably exhibiting the near sighted "if I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear" fallacious thinking (or coping mechanism).
I have lots to hide, and a boat load more to fear. Again you are mixing in issues here that should be separate. Yes, I as a singular citizen should be able to hold any opinion I wish. I should be allowed to speak about it. Should that be free from consequences? In all but clearly laid out cases, yes. Should I be able to force that opinion or content onto someone else? no.
In the US, you are more or less allowed to say what you like, but I, crucially don't have to agree, or indeed agree to broadcast your opinion(whether you like it or not, a forum is a broadcast by a third party).
I am crucially aware that _true_ freedom of speech has never existed. I do not like that single corporations are given such power to censor things at will without oversight, but that's just newspapers and TV. That's before we get onto "fighting words" and the like.
I want people to be able to say most things all of the time. The issue we have with online/text discourse is that its really simple to bully people without consequences. Society does not work if there are no consequences for actions that cause harm and injury.
Do I want to curtail freedom of speech? no. do I want china style censorship? no. Do I want a multiplicity of services to cater to the wide range of thought and speech? yes. Should everyone be forced to carry all opinions regardless of impact or outcome? no.
[1]https://goo.gl/maps/k2wVzDEBt4FUMY5b6