Parler is a radical social network website sufficiently offensive to have been banned from most platforms and hosting services. David Weinberger's point in this post is to argue that traditional ethical frameworks do not give us a good argument for deplatforming Parler. The suggestion is, if you take on the perspective of 'the other side', there isn't a good argument that would convince them that they are wrong. But (in my view) this sort of approach is what Robert Nozick called 'coercive philosophy': "arguments are powerful, and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion." This just feeds into the ethos of sites like Parler; it draws us into engagement and battle with the beast. No. We as ordinary citizens living in a free and open society can recognize Parler for what it is, and we deplatform the site because it is repugnant and offensive, and we have no obligation to convince them of anything.
Today: 1 Total: 12 [Direct link] [Share]
