To answer this question, we have to delve into why sites like Reddit and Twitter have historically been fiercely committed to freedom of speech.
There are three reasons: But a commitment to freedom of speech above all else presumes an idealistic version of the internet that no longer exists.
This enables the alt-right to position themselves as victims, and left-wing SJWs (“social justice warriors”) as aggressors.
Never mind that private companies can establish whatever content restrictions they wish, and that virtually all these companies already have such guidelines on the books, even if they are weakly enforced.
And as long as we consider any content moderation to be censorship, minority voices will continue to be drowned out by their aggressive majority counterparts.
For instance, in post-hippie Berkeley, early microcomputer aficionados formed the Homebrew Computer Club, freely sharing information that enabled its members to create some of the first personal computers.But these beliefs were built into the very infrastructure of the internet. Canter and Siegel were kicked off three ISP’s before finally finding a home and publishing the early e-marketing book .Despite these dubious successes, the offense was seen as so inappropriate that Canter was finally disbarred in 1997, partially due to the e-mail campaign; William W.A site once touted as “the free speech wing of the free speech party” is now best known for giving a voice to Donald Trump and #gamergaters.At the same time, attempts by Twitter and sites with similar histories of free speech protections to regulate the more offensive content on their site have been met with furious accusations of censorship and pandering to political correctness.