@strypey @stolas Until recently it wasn't being used to give a pass to hate speech and fascism. It also wasn't being used to mean freedom from criticism or a right to be heard or given a platform.
It's become controversial because its use has become controversial and stretched beyond recognition.
We don't have it in my country, we have freedom of expression. It is not absolute,and to argue as such is absurd, but still we hear the same arguments.
@sophia @firstname.lastname@example.org I'm sorry, these comments have been declared Extremist(TM) and Anti-Democratic(TM) by the #AcceptableSpeechCommittee. Please remove them from public view, or the host of your website will be asked to do so, and you will face criminal charges under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. If the website host refuses, they will also face charges, and their cloud host vendor or ISP will be asked to take down the website. If they refuse, they will lose their HDCA webcasting license.
@sophia @email@example.com fighting fascism, and authoritarianism of any kind, is indeed important work. One of the most essential tools in that work is freedom from government restrictions on speech. In a digital environment, "government" includes *anyone* who has formal powers to remove your speech from public view. Restrictions on #CivilLiberties are inevitably used by authorities against the radical left. Claiming they're intended for white supremacists et al is just window dressing.
> "I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult."
- Rich Shera interview on #MediaWatch
This guy from #NetCensor all but admits that "violent extremism" is being used as the thin end of the wedge, to justify a crackdown on information freedom that would otherwise be clearly unacceptable in any kind of democratic society.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!