Re: "the good" -- I was just riffing on 6ix. I wouldn't normally use exactly that language, and I'm not trying to be very precise. I hoped the gist would be evident.
But, re: predicting the future -- I'm guessing I didn't actually make my point very clearly, because I don't understand your response.
Here's a restatement. I was reading the conversation like this:
Quote:
point: It's good for social media to censor white nationalists
counter-point: you'll feel differently when you're the one being censored [i.e. you should favor a more content-neutral policy]
counter-counter-point: So? Good things are different from bad things [i.e. we should censor bad things and not good things and who cares about being neutral with regards to what is good or bad?]
And then my follow-up was that it's clearly worth keeping in mind what we deem as desirable and undesirable as far as making social policy goes. The concept of value-neutral politics doesn't really make sense to me. But it's also good (to the counter-point) to have some built-in resiliency in institutions, and value-neutral policies around freedom of expression have some value in that sense, especially taking into account the reality of how actual regulation works and who enforces it and how institutions change over time. In other words I think the counter-point has some validity as well.
Is that clearer?