Their rights aren't even being violated, it's never the government censoring them.

That being said, far more dangerous to society than the ability to speak hatefully is the government censoring speech it doesn't like.

Be me, the Canadian government

Decide that making social media companies pay news organizations to host their links is a good plan that will help struggling news sites.

The social media sites stop hosting links in order to avoid the payments, hurting said struggling news organizations.

Wait they weren't supposed to do that.

Canadians are not able to find out critical information about the wildfires due to your law.

Blame social media companies for being reckless.

Crisis averted.

Yea I've only read the first one myself. You did bring up a valid issue with the search function, I was just joking around :P

Although dark tower is a bit dark, no?

I really enjoyed reading TLWtaSAP.

Here's my input:

• Use of Weapons is great, and comes next in the publishing order.

• Consider Phlebias is the first published culture novel and it is a good book. I read it first, but since it gives a more outsider perspective on the culture it probably wasn't best to start with.

Either of those books is my recommendation, although be aware I've only read 4 of the 10 novels. Also as far as I know the books are generally self-contained and can really be read in any order, but there are some references you won't get if you do so.

As hinted at by its historical development, libertarianism is particularly appealing to white middle class men. It seems fairly obvious why; this group is perhaps the most privileged in our society, and sees little reason for a change in the societal order in place.

Ok so I understand the critique that libertarianism can be appealing to privileged people due to the focus on property rights. But libertarianism being status quo and appealing to people who want little change in societal order? You kidding me?

• Legalizing all drugs
• Legalizing sex work
• Legal gay marriage (decades before the democrats hopped on that train)
• The right to transition/do what you want to your body
• Demilitarizing and reforming the police force to investigate actual crimes, property and physical.
• Not getting involved in wars
• No drone strikes either, let the weddings be
• Reducing unneeded market hurdles imposed via licensing laws (did you know some states require licenses for psychics?)
• Preventing regulatory capture (yes Zuck, I'm sure your desire for social media regulation is entirely altruistic and not how you are going to prevent competition)
• Yimby zoning reform

Are some of the things that left and right leaning libertarians generally can agree on. Notice that most are decidedly not mainstream and would cause massive changes in societal order.

Then the author goes and says:

It’s not just anger that draws people to libertarianism, it’s contrarianism. Libertarianism has traditionally been a way for young middle-class teenagers to be nonconforming to both the left and right wings. They get to argue with their peers about social justice, while rebelling against their parents by advocating cannabis legalisation.

Ok, so libertarianism is both a way to maintain the status quo for rich white dudes, and also a way for non-conforming teenagers to rebel? Pick a narrative Mr. author. I will say this is more accurate than the first characterization though.

Mr. Author is accurate in describing a certain group of people who called themselves libertarians because they were angry and wanted to be contrarian, then they left and became alt-right. However, these people are not a fair representation of libertarians, especially given they literally aren't libertarian anymore. If a libertarian wants to critique social justice over U.S. war policy, I question their commitment. I know I'm no scotsmanning a bit here, but definitions are important. Sure a libertarian can hate aspects of social justice, but libertarianism itself has no opinion on it.