On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:15:00 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:

Most people accept that "do no harm" must be balanced against
"freedom of expression."

Is it an easy balance to maintain? No.

Does social media act as an amplification factor, allowing formerly marginalized groups (of all kinds) to get more attention? Yes it does.

Does this amplification factor tend to apply equally to all expressions of opinion, or does it tend to work more in favour of misinformation/ disinformation and hate speech to the disadvantage of more moderate and considered points of view?

That, people, is the big question.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/545425/matariki-post-unleashes-racist-torrent-for-far-north-council

and

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/527699/social-media-regulation-needed-to-protect-nz-s-diverse-communities-bsa-research-finds

It appears that the politically motivated Free Speech Union has
over-reached, and encouraged people to think that spewing bile and
hatred and misogynistic and racist views is acceptable. Most people
accept that "do no harm" must be balanced against "freedom of
expression."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-19, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/545425/matariki-post-unleashes-racist-torrent-for-far-north-council

and

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/527699/social-media-regulation-needed-to-protect-nz-s-diverse-communities-bsa-research-finds

It appears that the politically motivated Free Speech Union has over-reached, and encouraged people to think that spewing bile and
hatred and misogynistic and racist views is acceptable. Most people
accept that "do no harm" must be balanced against "freedom of
expression."

Free Speech comes with responsibility to refrain from going past what the majority considers acceptable, it does not excuse abuse.

It is important that Free Speech is defined if we are to use it in debates/discusion. As pointed out earlier in this thread Free Speech is
about speaking as your view without concerning whether or not the other
parties are offended.

In fact unless some people are offended no progress will be made.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2025-03-19, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/545425/matariki-post-unleashes-racist-torrent-for-far-north-council

and

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/527699/social-media-regulation-needed-to-protect-nz-s-diverse-communities-bsa-research-finds

It appears that the politically motivated Free Speech Union has
over-reached, and encouraged people to think that spewing bile and
hatred and misogynistic and racist views is acceptable. Most people
accept that "do no harm" must be balanced against "freedom of
expression."

Free Speech comes with responsibility to refrain from going past what the >majority considers acceptable, it does not excuse abuse.

It is important that Free Speech is defined if we are to use it in >debates/discusion. As pointed out earlier in this thread Free Speech is
about speaking as your view without concerning whether or not the other >parties are offended.

In fact unless some people are offended no progress will be made.

Indeed. And "do no harm needs definition but the poster did not do that of course.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)