The examples you’ve provided are very complex multi-dimensional topics.
The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples.
Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?
We ban cigarette advertisements because there was finally a social consensus that addiction to tobacco products is harmful. But it’s still completely legal to get yourself addicted.
On the other hand, there’s no consensus about the harm from phone addiction. Maybe in 30 years we’ll ban iPhone advertisements.
Like I said in another comment, I’d rather we deal with the underlying conditions which may lead to harm, than try to suppress ideas.
So you fundamentally agree that if we have social consensus, it’s totally OK to prevent the spread of ideas or messages (“speech”) as we have done with cigarettes? That was my entire question, to the folks who argue that there is never ever a reason to restrict speech.
I too think that we should address underlying issues, but if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?
I think banning tobacco ads is not the same situation because the entities behind them are corporations. The corporations mislead the public for decades in order to get people addicted, purely for profit. The public harm done was a negative externality of their business model. I'm in favor of regulating corporations. (I don't think there should be any advertising, anyway)
If we're talking about banning speech that is critical about a medical intervention, or even banning ideas that disagree with a social consensus, that's different territory. Doctors and others aren't speaking out because they want to mislead the public, or in order to profit.
> if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?
Well, I've seen no indication that we're dealing with underlying issues. For instance, if you truly want to restore trust in institutions, it's counterproductive to shut down public discussions that are critical of those institutions...
The idea of harmfulness is indeed a spectrum, and my example is at one extreme end of the spectrum in order to illustrate that “content moderation should never ever occur” may not stand up to all examples.
Most developed nations have banned advertisements of cigarettes, so it’s totally a thing we have done previously. Why are there no folks outraged that we can’t advertise cigarettes to children?