>> Should it allow antifa? Should it include racists? > > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail. > You are begging the question. Who makes those rules? If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed.
How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority? And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a constitution written in large part by the US, no.) Saying that it is possible to define a set of rules, ignores the issue of who defines the rules and how minority rights are protected. And allowing a majority mob-rule is not an answer, either. -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu.
