2 ms·

It seems like true freedom in digital social discourse is really only attainable via a decentralized system. (Note that I mean "freedom" not only to speak your

It seems like true freedom in digital social discourse is really only attainable via a decentralized system. (Note that I mean "freedom" not only to speak your mind, but also the freedom to not have to listen to someone else speak their mind if you don't want to.) There are plenty of unmoderated cesspools on the internet. There are also plenty of walled-garden centralised social media platforms that enforce their own interpretation of "appropriate" speech. A better solution is one that allows individuals to communicate on a decentralized network by joining a server of their choice (or hosting their own). Then those users/servers can control who they choose to federate with and who they choose to block. Subsidiarity in moderation will yeald the best outcome. This is my I am a big fan of Mastodon! https://joinmastodon.org/ https://joinmastodon.org/

jfengel 5y ago
And it's there. You have it. The ex-President can have it any time he wants, just like his blog. Problem solved.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  ...until someone upstream from his server decides his content is no longer welcome on the 'net and pulls the server from the rack / drops his network service / drops his name service / refuses to process payment requests / cancels his domain registration / refuses to process mail from his domain / etcetera. Think of how Parler was treated to get an idea of what I mean. Think of that scene in The Matrix where Neo was rhetorically questioned by agent Smith - "What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?". What good is a platform if you are unable to connect it to the internet?