From the govts view, they are acting to contain sectarian violence long enough that their society can find a stable equilibrium after a shock.
I don't think appeals to the principle of freedom of speech are meaningful against acts of censorship because it is a tactical response in a perceived crisis and not something that happens under ideal conditions where they can afford to be held to principles.
However, tactical approaches like clumsy censorship signal a deeper weakness that risks exacerbating sectarian resolve in all parties.
Cynically, the solution here may have been to rate limit content they didn't want instead of blocking it outright, which is insidious, but toward the desired outcome of defusing the spread of violence, people who want the content can get it without having to position themselves against the authorities (become outlaws) to do so, while removing it from casual observation. Reddit's quarantines, and Twitter's shadow bans mitigate some of the virality of reactions. Tagging traffic to these sites for slow path processing would have been trivial, and blocking them was an unforced error.
Societies need to respond to events like these by demonstrating unity and strength, which may mean acts of extraordinary tolerance - and not with tactical approaches that make them seem weak and vulnerable to an insurgency.
> I don't think appeals to the principle of freedom of speech are meaningful against acts of censorship because it is a tactical response in a perceived crisis and not something that happens under ideal conditions where they can afford to be held to principles.
This bizarre idea that principles are only relevant under "ideal conditions" is part of the problem. We can't afford not to hold governments to principles, especially under non-ideal conditions.
From the govts view, they are acting to contain sectarian violence long enough that their society can find a stable equilibrium after a shock.
I don't think appeals to the principle of freedom of speech are meaningful against acts of censorship because it is a tactical response in a perceived crisis and not something that happens under ideal conditions where they can afford to be held to principles.
However, tactical approaches like clumsy censorship signal a deeper weakness that risks exacerbating sectarian resolve in all parties.
Cynically, the solution here may have been to rate limit content they didn't want instead of blocking it outright, which is insidious, but toward the desired outcome of defusing the spread of violence, people who want the content can get it without having to position themselves against the authorities (become outlaws) to do so, while removing it from casual observation. Reddit's quarantines, and Twitter's shadow bans mitigate some of the virality of reactions. Tagging traffic to these sites for slow path processing would have been trivial, and blocking them was an unforced error.
Societies need to respond to events like these by demonstrating unity and strength, which may mean acts of extraordinary tolerance - and not with tactical approaches that make them seem weak and vulnerable to an insurgency.