>freedom leaves the possibility for attacks. liberty refers to ones ability to in fact be free from attack. So you're arguing from a perspective of ordered liberty? That's an interesting perspective you don't hear much about. >freespeech, as you define it, leaves the possibility of subversion, shill. It's this sentence that makes me doubt your point. Even in ordered liberty people are allowed to disagree and disagreement doesn't mean subversion.You literally said you had a problem with a "a hodgepodge of information that contradicts," and how you behave implies you don't know how to handle disagreement. >freespeech, as you define it, leaves the possibility of subversion, shill. Subversion is always possible. Poal has ways to deal with it like the algorithm that creates the Suspicious Behavior tag. We can argue about better ways to prevent subversion, but acting like you have the perfect solution and all who disagree are evil comes across as silly. >liberty in reference to poal would benifit from downvoats and blocking users. People can already block a limited amount of users. It's not infinite in order to avoid an echochamber. Perhaps you'd make a finer argument without thin skin.