> The effects of both can be seen from Russia this week. Their massive disinformation campaigns and combined with effective near-total suppression of free speech has 60% to 80%
So your first example that springs to mind to prove the simplistic and facile nature of free speech absolutism is a disinformation campaign that expressly rests on the extensive control of free speech within a certain information venue in order to promote that disinformation? How does this make any sense whatsoever?
> It already converted Hungary to an authoritarian state, and France is now very close to falling to an authoritarian party...
And what, exactly, is the information which is not being censored which has resulted in what you claim are objectionable and dangerous results in Hungary and France?
> The ability to deliberately manipulate the public conversation with tens of thousands of fake accounts is not free speech, it is freely amplified lies [2].
So why equate it with free speech aside from to assemble a strawman which you then proceed to knockdown to make your case after just emphasizing yourself they're two different things.
What?
> requiring a private platform to amplify any particular speech is just as un-free.
Is that actually being proposed? Because I haven't seen anything like that?
> you are FREE to make your own competing platform.
This is observably false based on what happened to Parler and Gab. The truth of the matter is that big tech is very hostile to competition and will to the extent they are able outright forbid it. The only way to actually build competitive platforms that do not push their ideological agenda and circumvent their attempts to stop you is to do what Odysee has done, and even there, they're fighting a case against the SEC as we speak, so it's not like they're being left to simply go about their business.
So your first example that springs to mind to prove the simplistic and facile nature of free speech absolutism is a disinformation campaign that expressly rests on the extensive control of free speech within a certain information venue in order to promote that disinformation? How does this make any sense whatsoever?
> It already converted Hungary to an authoritarian state, and France is now very close to falling to an authoritarian party...
And what, exactly, is the information which is not being censored which has resulted in what you claim are objectionable and dangerous results in Hungary and France?
> The ability to deliberately manipulate the public conversation with tens of thousands of fake accounts is not free speech, it is freely amplified lies [2].
So why equate it with free speech aside from to assemble a strawman which you then proceed to knockdown to make your case after just emphasizing yourself they're two different things.
What?
> requiring a private platform to amplify any particular speech is just as un-free.
Is that actually being proposed? Because I haven't seen anything like that?
> you are FREE to make your own competing platform.
This is observably false based on what happened to Parler and Gab. The truth of the matter is that big tech is very hostile to competition and will to the extent they are able outright forbid it. The only way to actually build competitive platforms that do not push their ideological agenda and circumvent their attempts to stop you is to do what Odysee has done, and even there, they're fighting a case against the SEC as we speak, so it's not like they're being left to simply go about their business.