Anyone who has studied the history of philosophy would know that the arguments you are making are classics among defenders of censorship: limiting speech for the "sake of speech" (over attention-seeking), "incentivize the context", "reinforce our humanity." None of these exempt you from managing speech, you're just trying to launder your values to a higher level - like what "good speech" is or whether a given speech-act appropriately "reinforces our own humanity." Tune the knobs of the social media platform until it starts producing speech I am more comfortable with.
Indeed much of JS Mill's On Liberty (1859) was dedicated to responding to these and others.
> we need to change our systems to incentivize human context around that speech
Who is the "we" who "should" do so? How does that "we" coordinate so that everyone building these systems builds them in the same way?
And why should these systems be optimized for whatever extrinsic goal you like better than "attention seeking"? That is managing speech.
Indeed much of JS Mill's On Liberty (1859) was dedicated to responding to these and others.
> we need to change our systems to incentivize human context around that speech
Who is the "we" who "should" do so? How does that "we" coordinate so that everyone building these systems builds them in the same way?
And why should these systems be optimized for whatever extrinsic goal you like better than "attention seeking"? That is managing speech.