4 ms·

The Fediverse solves the problem of authoritarian silencing. It doesn't solve the human inclination to share strong emotions with likeminded people, and to exc

• mkr-hn 6y ago
  "Critics" are free to make their own instance and invite people on, but they are not owed a debate by trans people who are just trying to socialize and live their lives.
  • Digory 6y ago
    Yeah, I don't think you can compel debates. I'm sensitive to arguments about bodily integrity and complicity. People are exercising a right to exclude voices they don't want to hear. But new tech lets us do it so well. And all-day, every-day people self-sort into silos, and then get a steady stream of "facts" about pedophile rings and pee tapes. QAnon seems like a problem of having too much power to self-sort, not a problem of "unmoderated free speech." Is there a healthy amount of "hate" that makes us stronger, like mental exercise? If we don't owe it to them, is it in our own interest to give more to those who hate us or disagree strongly?
• devmunchies 6y ago
  > The Fediverse solves the problem of authoritarian silencing I would say it "addresses" the problem but you can't solve it. Battling powerful classes of people, whether businesses or governments, will be a constant fact of life. No resting or your laurels.
  • Digory 6y ago
    Agreed. I'm kind of pricing in DNS as a public good that can't be cut off.
• sjg007 6y ago
  Can elaborate on what you mean by antifragile in this context?
  • Digory 6y ago
    Taleb wrote a book called "Anti-fragile," which comments on three kinds of systems: * Fragile systems try to avoid disorder, disruption and/or shocks. * Robust systems stand up to shocks, but don't change. * Anti-fragile systems respond to shocks and disruptions to improve, to become stronger or more creative. It's close to the idea of "eustress." The human body can avoid all exercise and stress, but it becomes sickly and fragile. Ideally, humans regularly seek out more and more stress to grow stronger. It seems we're in a loop of responding to stressful speech by squelching it and avoiding it -- admittedly, through free choice, and not government action. But, like people trying to get healthy by avoiding exercise, we're getting sick in our silos. (The silos, to be fair, aren't stress-free. There is a lot of anger and sadness in them. But shutting out all the unwelcome voices seems to be making people more fragile in the real world, not less.)
    • sjg007 6y ago
      I am aware of how Taleb defines antifragile... I've read the book. >"What we don't have is a Taleb-like model for anti-fragile speech under new tech." What do you mean here? And how does it relate to "trans" speech in particular?
      • Digory 6y ago
        It doesn't relate specially to trans speech; KixiQu's comment above observed that fediverse instances seem to moderate out transphobia more than Twitter. Then JL6 asked if fediverse is moderating itself into a silo. I'm saying moderation and exclusion are traditional tools in responding to offensive speech in private fora. But moderation and exclusion can become too good. We've seen right and left choose into bubbles big enough to sway elections with outrageous false claims. The Twitter and AWS response to bad speech generated by free-choice silos is to enforce their own, bigger silencing or moderation policy. I'd like to find ways where people can grow, adapt, and cooperate more when they encounter hostile, offensive, or untrue beliefs or speech online.