> 'But those are different' is usually the argument here. But why though?
Because we already agree they're different, so they form a Schelling point. We don't have to argue about them, and so there's no slippery slope.
However, I'd say even these examples are not as clear as they seem:
Death threats: I can see the need to punish credible death threats (and any credible threats of violence), but that does not actually imply a need to censor the death threats. Allow them to exist on the platform, but punish the threatener.
Defamation: This seems like a pointless holdover from honor culture. If we didn't have laws against it, people would simply demand evidence more often when hearing someone defame someone else. I don't see why the government needs to certify that my statement about someone else is true. Let my reputation do that.
Pedophilia: Have any children been saved by child pornography laws? It's possible banning and deleting it only encourages them to make more. And again, you can punish the creator of the pornography without also having to censor the content. The two are separate.
Sharing bomb making materials: This is the only example you gave where the actual information itself is dangerous. I support this being banned for sure. (You could say defamation is dangerous, but I'd say it's only harmful when the government is certifying our speech. Take away defamation laws, and defamation itself becomes less harmful, because we won't believe what others say at face value.)
Because we already agree they're different, so they form a Schelling point. We don't have to argue about them, and so there's no slippery slope.
However, I'd say even these examples are not as clear as they seem:
Death threats: I can see the need to punish credible death threats (and any credible threats of violence), but that does not actually imply a need to censor the death threats. Allow them to exist on the platform, but punish the threatener.
Defamation: This seems like a pointless holdover from honor culture. If we didn't have laws against it, people would simply demand evidence more often when hearing someone defame someone else. I don't see why the government needs to certify that my statement about someone else is true. Let my reputation do that.
Pedophilia: Have any children been saved by child pornography laws? It's possible banning and deleting it only encourages them to make more. And again, you can punish the creator of the pornography without also having to censor the content. The two are separate.
Sharing bomb making materials: This is the only example you gave where the actual information itself is dangerous. I support this being banned for sure. (You could say defamation is dangerous, but I'd say it's only harmful when the government is certifying our speech. Take away defamation laws, and defamation itself becomes less harmful, because we won't believe what others say at face value.)