I listen to quite a few podcasts during the week. Many of these podcasts are less than 30min. But I also listen to a handful of long-form podcast. One of those is “The Diary of a CEO.” The host (Steven Bartlett) does a magnificent job interviewing the different guests. Guests range from scientists to CEOs to even ex CIA operatives who offer a wide range of opinions and knowledge. Furthermore, the conversations are fascinating and thought provoking. The podcast also has a Youtube channel if one prefers to “watch” the interview.

Recently, Bartlett had Reid Hoffman (wiki) as a guest (watch here on youtube). Who is Hoffman? He is one of the members of the “PayPal Mafia” but might be more commonly recognized as the founder of LinkedIn.

Now why would I be so interested in even writing about this interview? One of the discussed topics centered around “censorship” and Hoffman’s thoughts about Twitter’s banning Trump (NPR).

But before I get to his thoughts, here are my thoughts about deplatforming in general.
1) One of the reasons America is “great” is the fact that everyone has a platform to speak about any issue and there would be very little retribution (i.e. being cancelled, getting doxxed) for speaking one’s mind. As much as I don’t like hate speech or speech that denigrates one tribe over another tribe, the opinions of the speaker are just opinions. I believe that the speakers SHOULD BE ABLE to speak their peace regardless of whether the speech is truthful, full of lies, full of hate, or flat out disrespectful and disparaging. I still believe that deplatforming Trump was the wrong move.
2) I also believe that ALL SPEECH needs to be monitored to be factual or at very minimum if there are opposing sides/stories that both sides are presented. What you say is what you believe but it might not be correct or factual. And this is where I think speech needs to be monitored. The choice should be up to the reader to confirm if what is stated is factual or not. America needs to raise a new generation of thinkers who should be able to decide on their own what is true and what is false.
3) I also beleive that speech with ANY THREAT of violence should NEVER BE TOLERATED. Regardless of if the THREAT of violence is hinted at, considered subversive or just overt declaration, this type of speech should be taken seriously and action to minimize the threat should be swift.
4) There still is a chance for all traditional and social media companies to “MAKE SPEECH GREAT AGAIN.” First to clearly implement speech policies that strictly forbids threats of violence while also implementing fact checking process on controverisal topics. Second to implement ways where fact checking policies allow readers to decide themself.

Back to the podcast, here’s a shortcut (click here) to Hoffman’s opinion about how speech should be handled. His idea represents a solid middle ground. I am happy that there are others who also believe that it is possible to have a society where speech can be balanced, safe, civil, and truthful. Hoffman goes further with the idea of freedom of speech vs freedom of reach and how differentiating between the two benefits society. Even contrarian and/or unpopular opinions should be heard by society, explored and thoroughly investigated by society, and then confirmed or debunked by society.

After thinking about this for the last few days, I pose this question to readers: Would a society that participates in the type of civil discourse (as imagined by Hoffman) become a better society overall?