3 ms·

> What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored? Unfortunately enlightenment / classically lib

> What's the point of being a free western country if the people that need the support most are the most ignored? Unfortunately enlightenment / classically liberal values (different from leftist liberal values) have been on the decline in the US, particularly with younger generations. Free speech is one of those values under attack. Even the ACLU, under different leadership than in the past, is wavering on free speech (https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/ https://reason.com/2018/06/21/aclu-leaked-memo-free-speech/). James Kirchick spoke at length about this unfortunate evolution in a recent podcast (https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-on-the-disintegration-of-the-aclu/ https://quillette.com/2021/04/09/podcast-144-james-kirchick-...). The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced our right to free speech over to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Biden even recently said that no constitutional amendment is absolute, which seems like further normalization of erosion of fundamental rights. With the floodgate of censorship already being opened in the West, it seems there is no one on the side of unfettered speech and intellectual freedom today. At the same time I understand why other nations are wary of both the power vested in social media and the influence of savvy or highly active participants therein. It’s a risk for local culture, politics, and stability to be undermined through that channel. Even European nations are increasingly skeptical of outside influences corrupting their sovereignty (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threat-american-universities.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...).

fossuser 6y ago
> Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced that right to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I think it's problematic, but ultimately they should be able to moderate their users/choose who they allow on their platform (outside of a few protected characteristics). I think it'd be a worse speech violation if the government forced them to do otherwise. I think we should be using tools that make this irrelevant by making decentralized communication tools actually work. I agree with Moxie that in the current system this is basically impossible. That's why urbit gives me hope. > The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. I don't mean to proselytize - I mean to say we have a responsibility to do better since we live in a freer society. Nobody at Twitter is going to be killed for doing the right thing here, and while liberal (little L) values are under threat in the west, there is still a massive gulf between the west and countries like China.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  > Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I’m also conflicted on this point, but my present feeling is that these tech companies constitute a different situation from a “regular” private company exercising their own free speech rights. Several of them are too big and monopolistic (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook) and the ones that aren’t on that scale, like Twitter, are still very shielded from competition because their product (social media) relies on network effects (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). My take is that when a company has so many users that its scope of influence is larger than most governments, or when it has unprecedented financial size, or when there are barriers to competition like network effects, we have to take action. That action could be breaking up companies, or regulating them like a public utility, or just taking them into public ownership. Otherwise I feel the erosion of rights from ubiquitous all-powerful private entities is a loophole that runs around our intended fundamental rights. Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? I remember looking at Mastodon but they seem to have gravitated towards their own form of censorship. And then there’s the chicken and egg problem of getting users, content creators, and advertisers to move. Has anyone thought of a plan to make that happen?
  - fossuser 6y ago
    > Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? https://urbit.org/ https://urbit.org/ I think stuff like mastodon is dead on arrival and will never succeed outside of its extremely niche audience. Urbit has the potential to solve a lot of these issues because of its architecture.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      You don't think urbit is extremely niche?
      - fossuser 6y ago
        I think it definitely is currently, but it doesn't need to be. The design is such that it's possible for it to be as easy to use as FB. Running your own linux server will never be. The urbit tooling still has a way to go, but it's improving. I'm hopeful that it can get there. Mastodon is trapped by the problems of the existing software stack - they can't escape them: https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/ https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/

fossuser 6y ago

> Although the US government is bound by the first amendment, we have effectively outsourced that right to private monopolies that aggressively censor views that don’t fit progressive perspectives. Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I think it's problematic, but ultimately they should be able to moderate their users/choose who they allow on their platform (outside of a few protected characteristics). I think it'd be a worse speech violation if the government forced them to do otherwise. I think we should be using tools that make this irrelevant by making decentralized communication tools actually work. I agree with Moxie that in the current system this is basically impossible. That's why urbit gives me hope. > The West (as nations, corporations, citizens, etc) is not in a position to proselytize on this front any longer. I don't mean to proselytize - I mean to say we have a responsibility to do better since we live in a freer society. Nobody at Twitter is going to be killed for doing the right thing here, and while liberal (little L) values are under threat in the west, there is still a massive gulf between the west and countries like China.

throwawaysea 6y ago
> Private companies being able to do this is a form of speech. I’m also conflicted on this point, but my present feeling is that these tech companies constitute a different situation from a “regular” private company exercising their own free speech rights. Several of them are too big and monopolistic (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook) and the ones that aren’t on that scale, like Twitter, are still very shielded from competition because their product (social media) relies on network effects (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect). My take is that when a company has so many users that its scope of influence is larger than most governments, or when it has unprecedented financial size, or when there are barriers to competition like network effects, we have to take action. That action could be breaking up companies, or regulating them like a public utility, or just taking them into public ownership. Otherwise I feel the erosion of rights from ubiquitous all-powerful private entities is a loophole that runs around our intended fundamental rights. Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? I remember looking at Mastodon but they seem to have gravitated towards their own form of censorship. And then there’s the chicken and egg problem of getting users, content creators, and advertisers to move. Has anyone thought of a plan to make that happen?
- fossuser 6y ago
  > Leaving all that aside - what platforms do you believe hold promise for a decentralized future? https://urbit.org/ https://urbit.org/ I think stuff like mastodon is dead on arrival and will never succeed outside of its extremely niche audience. Urbit has the potential to solve a lot of these issues because of its architecture.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    You don't think urbit is extremely niche?
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I think it definitely is currently, but it doesn't need to be. The design is such that it's possible for it to be as easy to use as FB. Running your own linux server will never be. The urbit tooling still has a way to go, but it's improving. I'm hopeful that it can get there. Mastodon is trapped by the problems of the existing software stack - they can't escape them: https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/ https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit/