There's this ideallistic idea that free speech means anarchy rather than speech subject to rules of engagement.
But it turns out the principle of free speech needs protection from deliberate disruptive speech of the sort Putin's people employ and which Trump used to foment a coup. Just like markets need protection from crooks.
The civilised, polite conversation people like Madison and Jefferson envisaged, in which sincere people express honest opinions of various sorts was fine for a southern drawing room. But it did not contemplate deliberate destruction of online conversation between vast numbers of people by fake speech factories run by dictators.
That's why moderation always ends up being necessary. Not everyone is polite. And not everyone wants a sincere conversation. Many people also want to discuss conspiracy theories endlessly. In such circumstances, excluding bad actors is unfortunately necessary.
That's why Musk isn't a sensible owner for twitter. He's an ideallist. And conversations only thrive where there are practical rules of engagement.
| 