3 ms·
>you can just... Use the internet I don't get why you made this argument and then immediately rebutted it in the next paragraph. If people with enough power d
by TheOperator 6y ago
>you can just... Use the internet
I don't get why you made this argument and then immediately rebutted it in the next paragraph. If people with enough power dislike a group of people enough, in this case white nationalists, they can be marginalized to the point they're making TOR websites.
The idea that censoring free speech isn't a problem because people can just start their own website is about as naive as free speech absolutism is. It trivializes censorship. If a major platform banned all lgbt discussion on the pretense it was no big deal because peoole could start their own website nobody would have any of it despite the fact that the only thing that had changed is the target.
Realistically censorship haalways been part of the internet and human society more broadly, it's an inevitability. The broad issues I'm concerned with is concentration of power over speech and increasing echo chambers in online communities. Reddit has shifted more and more towards central control including implicit threats for moderators/communities who step out of line.
- mulmen 6y agoI understand your echo chamber argument but I don’t find it compelling. I think preserving freedom of expression specifically and liberty in general is more important than forcing ideas on people against their will and the foundation of our society. The question was “do we need a new internet” the answer to which is “no.” In my opinion. I don’t care if a bunch of hateful racists are marginalized by private organizations. The problem here is not the network, the problem is people who want to force their ideas on everyone. Luckily our technical and social systems are both resistant to such threats.