> I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).

Um, that's emphatically not what the article says. It says the plan was never implemented due to public distaste. We never got to see if it worked.

> Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.

Bullshit. We censor all the damn time! It keeps children safe. It keeps forums civil. You just don't see it because it's working. Not to say it's perfect but to say that censorship always fails is... I'm sorry... just ridiculous.

> Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.

I'm not saying that. Plenty of people and organizations use censorship for good purposes effectively. It's figured out. I'm just not an expert so I can't give you the details.

> Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"

>"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.

I'm really not sure what your point is here. You seem to take it as settled fact that "censorship cannot be done effectively or precisely" and I keep pointing out that we already do it... constantly.

> You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.

This simply doesn't follow. Failure doesn't imply no solution. It simply means THAT method was a failure. You're smarter than this, you've shown me.

> Throwing shit at the wall isn't bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.

I mean... shit causes disease? You sure that's the metaphor you want?

> I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.

Curious... what views do you hold that you think would run afoul of these rules? I'm really only talking about bigotry and harmful disinformation. Do you spread those often?

What value do we preserve by allowing bigotry and harmful disinformation? Cuz I don't buy that we cannot reliably identify it. Since we do it already.