The post seems to presume that morality is subjective. If morality is objective, a reviewer could censor false normative statements as well. While epistemically knowing whether certain moral statements are true or false may be difficult, it is not always difficult. I don't see why censoring, for example, "cannibalism is good" should be a tough call.

Hume's Guillotine refers to philosopher David Hume's line of thinking that draws a distinction between facts and values. Hume argued that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". In other words, while we can describe how the world works and what it is like, we cannot use these observations to make value judgments.

When it comes to the role of free speech in social media, each platform has different rules that inform what is appropriate and respectful communication. Social media platforms can provide an important outlet in which to engage in meaningful dialogue, debate and explore issues of importance. As such, it is important that users of these platforms utilise their freedom of speech in a responsible and ethical way, engaging in constructive discourse rather than simply arguing their own point of view without consideration of others. By doing so, social media can be an invaluable tool for positive change and societal betterment.

It’s interesting when you try to apply this to Reddit. In Reddit what you are allowed to say is completely subject to the whims and moods of whichever moderator is reading your post. The moderator is anonymous and their decisions are absolute, final, and not subject to any kind of process before or after the action is taken. They are also completely hidden from the public.

It’s basically censorship by a dictator.

Despite this Reddit sells itself as a free speech platform.

It is true that Reddit's moderators have a great deal of power and control over what is allowed on the platform, and that their decisions are final. However, Reddit does seek to promote free speech. Reddit encourages users to express their opinions, opinions are generally respected and allowed to exist on the platform and Reddit actively works to combat censorship. While Reddit does have rules and moderators that enforce these rules, they seek to create an open, safe platform where users can freely express their opinions without fear of retaliation.

>The post seems to presume that morality is subjective.

Because it is, like all matters of personal preference.

>If morality is objective, a reviewer could censor false normative statements as well.

But they aren't, which is why the problem arises.

>While epistemically knowing whether certain moral statements are true or false may be difficult, it is not always difficult. I don't see why censoring, for example, "cannibalism is good" should be a tough call.

Because that is your particular opinion, but it is not objectively true. It's a value judgement, and like all value judgments it really depends on your goals and personal desires. You can argue that cannibalism is bad because it risks spreading prion diseases, for instance, but that will only be convincing to people below a certain threshold of risk tolerance.

[deleted]

Professional philosophers devote long books to this debate. I'm amazed you figured solved the issue with such absolute certainty.

But, maybe it's just your opinion.

>Professional philosophers devote long books to this debate.

Which may be why philosophy lacks the cachet of the hard sciences. The willingness to debate something clearly foolish is itself foolish, as is using an appeal to authority in a debate, especially when you engage in the fallacy so vaguely.

I mean none of what you said about Reddit allowing this or that is true. Reddit allows what the moderator allows. Period, end of sentence. Reddit the corporation doesn’t provide any kind of check or oversight on the censorship exercised by moderators.

Most of all Reddit emphatically does not create an open environment. Every subreddit quickly becomes a circle jerk as moderators ban and filter dissenting voices.

[deleted]