4 ms·

> My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that. That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than

> My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that. That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
What is "the community's right to shut somebody up"? If a country elects a dictator, it is fine if that dictator then shuts people up? Mastodon (afaik) already has the feature that communities can decide what outside content can enter their servers. What is the point on making it impossible for others to use the software at all? It doesn't server the purpose of protecting that community from nasty speech, because that is already accomplished by not communicating with the evil servers.
- oblio 5y ago
  If the dictator is democratically elected, well, kind of yes. Plus you've already lost. The real protection against abuse by the majority is generally through constitutions. Plus having a well educated populace.
chrismcb 5y ago
The community does not, and should not have the right to shut someone up. They have a right not to listen.
nobody9999 5y ago
> > My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that. >That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual. I completely disagree. The individual's right to speak is greater (at least in the US) than the government's right to shut them up. However, other individuals (or a group of individuals, such as a corporation like F-Droid) have the same right to speak, as well as the right to control the speech on their private property. There is an important distinction there. From a legal standpoint, the government are restricted from (except in very narrow circumstances) limiting an individual's speech. However, private actors have no such restrictions on their private property. a "community" of individuals can absolutely express their dislike/dissatisfaction with the speech of others by banning them from their private property. It's only the government that's restricted from doing so.
- blowski 5y ago
  My comment is not about the best way to organise society. It’s pointing out that if you believe that view, you still have a bias. The OP’s comment sounded like “I’m not biased, because my view is objectively correct”.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >My comment is not about the best way to organise society. It’s pointing out that if you believe that view, you still have a bias. The OP’s comment sounded like “I’m not biased, because my view is objectively correct”. My misunderstanding. Apologies. Upon reflection, I think my comment dovetails nicely with your point.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

What is "the community's right to shut somebody up"? If a country elects a dictator, it is fine if that dictator then shuts people up? Mastodon (afaik) already has the feature that communities can decide what outside content can enter their servers. What is the point on making it impossible for others to use the software at all? It doesn't server the purpose of protecting that community from nasty speech, because that is already accomplished by not communicating with the evil servers.

oblio 5y ago
If the dictator is democratically elected, well, kind of yes. Plus you've already lost. The real protection against abuse by the majority is generally through constitutions. Plus having a well educated populace.

chrismcb 5y ago

The community does not, and should not have the right to shut someone up. They have a right not to listen.

nobody9999 5y ago

> > My point of view is: let everybody say whatever they want. Doesn't get more unbiased than that. >That assumes the individual’s right to speak is greater than the community’s right to shut them up, and is therefore biased in favour of the individual. I completely disagree. The individual's right to speak is greater (at least in the US) than the government's right to shut them up. However, other individuals (or a group of individuals, such as a corporation like F-Droid) have the same right to speak, as well as the right to control the speech on their private property. There is an important distinction there. From a legal standpoint, the government are restricted from (except in very narrow circumstances) limiting an individual's speech. However, private actors have no such restrictions on their private property. a "community" of individuals can absolutely express their dislike/dissatisfaction with the speech of others by banning them from their private property. It's only the government that's restricted from doing so.

blowski 5y ago
My comment is not about the best way to organise society. It’s pointing out that if you believe that view, you still have a bias. The OP’s comment sounded like “I’m not biased, because my view is objectively correct”.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >My comment is not about the best way to organise society. It’s pointing out that if you believe that view, you still have a bias. The OP’s comment sounded like “I’m not biased, because my view is objectively correct”. My misunderstanding. Apologies. Upon reflection, I think my comment dovetails nicely with your point.