A constant tug-of-war on the Internet is the question of censorship and moderation. A vocal faction (such as those who frequent Reddit or Thought Catalog) will constantly talk about how moderation is anarchy and that every viewpoint deserves to be heard, while others will vigorously moderate comments and remove hurtful or troll comments.
Here’s the thing about free speech: the right does not mean, “You can say whatever you want without consequences and people have to listen.” What it does mean is that you can say whatever you want without being penalized by the government. So if you post on Jezebel saying that women are man-hating, friend-zoning sluts and the moderators delete you, your right to free speech hasn’t been violated. People are allowed to react to things they don’t like.
It’s hard to talk about censorship sometimes because it’s a slippery slope: who decides what should be censored? How do we decide who shouldn’t have a voice? Is that fair?
Luckily, there are ample examples of what an online space looks like when it’s un-edited and un-moderated; when everyone is given a voice. You’ve got YouTube, Yahoo, and Huffington Post comments: badly written racist, sexist garbage. You have Reddit, which, if you know where to look, has child pornography, videos and pictures of beaten women, subreddits dedicated to talking about how inferior women are, pictures of dead children, etc. etc. You have Thought Catalog, which has articles about how gross and unnatural trans people are, how short hair on women is comparable to rape because guys may have to feel like they’re having sex with a man, and how people who vaccinate their children are idiots. You have 4chan, which has repeatedly made death threats to Anita Sarkeesian, the YouTube personality who makes videos criticizing women’s portrayal in video games.
I don’t think hateful people should be allowed to vomit their thoughts everywhere without repercussions. Thought Catalog claims to be totally neutral and publish everything. They’re not just saying that; they’ve published articles critical of the site before. However, by publishing these things, they are condoning the thoughts themselves. They’re saying, by virtue of the fact that they allow the articles to get by editors and by their motto that all thinking is relevant, that these thoughts are valid. And they’re not, which is why we have punishments in place for hate speech.
Even if you still think that everyone’s thoughts should be shared all the time, you have to acknowledge that when everyone is allowed to say whatever they want, it is often awful, grammatically. I’ve read Thought Catalog articles that made no sense because they were so badly written.
I haven’t encountered a lot of really good communities online. The ones that tend to moderate their comments more are feminist sites like Jezebel and Captain Awkward. And while I think both tend to be a bit more over the line with what is acceptable or not (for example, on Captain Awkward the words “dumb” or “lame” are not allowed for being ableist, and there are trigger warnings for EVERYTHING), it feels a lot more accepting and a place where I can relax, knowing that the comments that remain will be even-keeled and non-rage inducing. This is because comments are vigorously moderated. It creates a space where everyone feels safe and accepted. I can deal with what I feel are superfluous trigger warnings if it means I don’t have to read posts from trolls.
In the real world, you’re not allowed to just say what you want and people have to put up with it. If I was to get a bullhorn and stand on the street going on and on about how awful black people are (I don’t actually believe this), I would be pilloried, and rightly so. We self-moderate every day as part of the social contract. The rules shouldn’t be different online just because the words are in another form.
