There are a lot of good points in this article, and I’ve been trying to write a response, but everything I want to say sounds inadequate. I don’t think there can be a TLDR for this, because it’s so densely written and there are good points all around. It’s more of a brief survey than anything else.
Free speech (in the sense of legally protected speech) wasn’t really mentioned here, but this was more about who controls the conversation, versus who should control the conversation. I will say that the idea of unregulated speech is asking for trouble, because of the opportunity to flood out all legitimate discourse with bullshit. Conversations can be derailed much more easily than they can be gotten back on track. Outright restriction of speech is a bad idea, but there has to be some control. If it seems like speech carries on okay without any kind of regulation, it’s because one message dominates the conversation.
