The philosophy of admins for blocking certain voices should be: "I don't want to help propagate this" rather than "They shouldn't be allowed to say this anywhere and no one should be able to listen to them."
For the record, I support blocking hatred and do so myself, but they still have the right to speak. We shouldn't be pushing to remove their voice altogether.
Because where does it end? After hate speech, censorship turns to politics, and that contains so many gray areas that it turns to censoring opinions with which we disagree. Turning people against each other.
Block evil. But let people voice dissenting views. This is the foundation of democracy.
@josias Very well said! (But I have to admit that I don't know what their moderations policies are, other than allowing people to speak freely unless it's illegal or pornographic in the case of gab...don't know much about parler.)
It ends exactly at the borders of democratic discourse.
Our democratic societies have a set of agreed upon rules, such as fundamental human rights and the existence of objective facts.
When people leave the foundations of these rules, they cannot be part of democratic discourse anymore.
Alt right rhethoric abuses democratic discourse and destroys democracy from the inside. I'd say they are basically cheating at democracy. (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)
Free speech means, nobody can be punished for having or uttering any opinion. But it does not mean that anybody or any company has to support them in spreading their opinion or even listen to them.
I do agree that blocking policies must be monitored closely and must be subject to democratic processes! No company can be allowed to decide alone who can be part of discourse and who cannot. There must be democratic control and appeal mechanisms for the so called platforms of social media.
A family-friendly social network (Mastodon instance) devoted to the new life found in Christ.