I agree with reversing the ban.[1] Right along with many others.
Frankly, permabans really need thinking through.
At a minimum, multiple bans, or feature limits should precede them, and there should be required process associated with a permanent ban, including appeals.
That may seem excessive and or burdensome. I agree.
Small venues that do not come with considerable life implications can and should be exempt.
Big venues are making plenty of money, or have the means to do that, and are interwoven with society to a degree worth the effort.
In general, the cancel moves we see rising in prominence are not answers in themselves. Trump sucks. Alex Jones sucks, and arguably more!
Banning them was not helpful. It does feel good to those who dislike their speech, but it had near zero impact on others who value and seek more of their speech. Closing the door hard luke that hardens those people, who then present notable resolve to follow a favored speaker and or act on their behalf.[0]
What is does not do is open them up to receive remedial speech of any kind.
Having the media then attack these people, often speaking for them, is not a good look particularly given the level of error (and I am being charitable) in their own speech, often labeled authoritative. Again, despite considerable error.
Finally, we have and will continue to see this abused to silence both critics and competing speech. This speech is both necessary and prior to massive media consolidation, considered normal, healthy behavior in a functioning democracy.
I should also mention there is a shared burden related to speech we do not like and that burden lies with any of us and how we choose to respond to speech we do not like.
That offense can be gamed is a problem too. People are as offended as they think they are and the basis for said offence varies widely. A claim of profound offence can be made and others have very little to validate it with.
At a minimum, responding to speech we do not like with righteous indignation generally escalates the dialog into unproductive meta. Almost any other response will fare better. Other responses include: humor, questions, rebuttals, redirects, reconsideration... any of which can take a conversation t9 a productive, far less harmful place. Emphasis on how we all manage incoming speech would do a lot of good, rather than the ongoing harm being used to cast the idea of free speech aside and or solidify some entities as authorities, sans meaningful checks on their speech, which also gets abused. The most common abuse is manufacturing consent.
[0] Source is behavior observed in a fair number of people who fall into one or more categories implied by my comment.
Frankly, permabans really need thinking through.
At a minimum, multiple bans, or feature limits should precede them, and there should be required process associated with a permanent ban, including appeals.
That may seem excessive and or burdensome. I agree.
Small venues that do not come with considerable life implications can and should be exempt.
Big venues are making plenty of money, or have the means to do that, and are interwoven with society to a degree worth the effort.
In general, the cancel moves we see rising in prominence are not answers in themselves. Trump sucks. Alex Jones sucks, and arguably more!
Banning them was not helpful. It does feel good to those who dislike their speech, but it had near zero impact on others who value and seek more of their speech. Closing the door hard luke that hardens those people, who then present notable resolve to follow a favored speaker and or act on their behalf.[0]
What is does not do is open them up to receive remedial speech of any kind.
Having the media then attack these people, often speaking for them, is not a good look particularly given the level of error (and I am being charitable) in their own speech, often labeled authoritative. Again, despite considerable error.
Finally, we have and will continue to see this abused to silence both critics and competing speech. This speech is both necessary and prior to massive media consolidation, considered normal, healthy behavior in a functioning democracy.
I should also mention there is a shared burden related to speech we do not like and that burden lies with any of us and how we choose to respond to speech we do not like.
That offense can be gamed is a problem too. People are as offended as they think they are and the basis for said offence varies widely. A claim of profound offence can be made and others have very little to validate it with.
At a minimum, responding to speech we do not like with righteous indignation generally escalates the dialog into unproductive meta. Almost any other response will fare better. Other responses include: humor, questions, rebuttals, redirects, reconsideration... any of which can take a conversation t9 a productive, far less harmful place. Emphasis on how we all manage incoming speech would do a lot of good, rather than the ongoing harm being used to cast the idea of free speech aside and or solidify some entities as authorities, sans meaningful checks on their speech, which also gets abused. The most common abuse is manufacturing consent.
[0] Source is behavior observed in a fair number of people who fall into one or more categories implied by my comment.
[1] That is not an endorsement of any kind.