Tolerating the Misguided: An Inoculation Against Villainy: Defending Odysee

According to The Guardian, the platform Odysee issued guidance to moderators stating that “a Nazi who makes videos about the superiority of the white race” would not, in itself, be grounds for removal from the platform. I "MoribundMurdoch" agree with Odysee’s stance, particularly because the notion of white superiority is non-threatening—it’s both foolish and easily refuted. While racism and ideas of racial superiority may have posed greater challenges when people first began to intermingle, once the absurdity of discriminating based on immutable characteristics becomes evident, such beliefs inevitably shatter like glass. Tolerating even misguided ideologies, like those espoused by neo-Nazis, aligns with the core principle of a free speech platform. The benefits of such a platform are significant—when extreme voices engage with more reasonable individuals, there’s a potential for redemption. Conversely, if we retreat in fear from vice and evil, many will remain unchallenged and unprepared, leaving large swaths of people vulnerable to these very ideas and vices.
The primary challenge for a free speech platform is that its early adopters tend to be more extreme voices—those with fringe opinions, such as hardcore socialists, libertarians, mentally ill people with poor impulse control, individuals banned from mainstream platforms, fascists, etc.—rather than mainstream liberals or conservatives. In this early internet age, people are highly brand-conscious, and guilt by association has grown especially potent, particularly in today’s zeitgeist of left-leaning liberalism, where a cancel culture for controversial speech has become commonplace.


Normal Person Leaving the Free Speech Platform: Link To A Blog Post About A Normal Person Leaving The Platform

Article That Inspired This Blog Post