5 ms·

This is why everyone should read RMS's Right to Read story. Its not just about censoring the output, they want to censor our inputs too! While the RMS parable i

This is why everyone should read RMS's Right to Read story. Its not just about censoring the output, they want to censor our inputs too! While the RMS parable is less about censorship and more about drm its still relevant. [1] Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are so bought into the tribalistic dialectic that, in the more recent version, they heard about all the censoring, they saw the people being censored were "those evil others" and said "yeah thats ok with me!", failing to understand the lack of principle would/will come for them next. The beauty of it all is that I think the oligarchs are overplaying their hand to the point they are going to force a pendulum swing back the other way at some point. The counter-point to that is that with techno-tyranny at some point the oligarchs are going to be able to stop the pendulum swing. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html bonus: Hitchens on freedom of speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0

germinalphrase 5y ago
There is little consistency of belief across the political spectrum. This breeds hypocrisy and mistrust which fuels further mistrust and hypocrisy. It’s just general cultural ugliness all the way down.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>Hitchens on freedom of speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0 Interesting to watch this with hindsight and see how wrong he was about Religion and why they were censorious.
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  Could you expound on what you mean? I must have missed it.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    He made the point that religious organisations tried to restrict freedom of speech in order to silence activist groups they didn't agree with (which at the time was true), but also suggested a causal relationship between the fact that they held "primitive" beliefs and their willingness to censor. If you look at how society has evolved over the last 15 years, the opposite has come true. Activists are successfully limiting speech they find offensive through legislation and intimidation, and one of the strongest defenders of "full" freedom of speech has now become the religious far-right. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the notion of "full" freedom of speech (which we don't actually have in Australia; only an implied right to freedom of political communication to the extent that is necessary to keep democracy running), but you can't deny that religion is no longer the enemy of free speech.
    - arminiusreturns 5y ago
      Actually I think I could deny it, because the issue is more complex than a boolean. While yes, certain religions have increased in their freedom of speech rhetoric, some of them still have death penalties for things like blasphemy (which in some cases includes cartoon drawings, apparently), and that hasn't really changed.

germinalphrase 5y ago

There is little consistency of belief across the political spectrum. This breeds hypocrisy and mistrust which fuels further mistrust and hypocrisy. It’s just general cultural ugliness all the way down.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>Hitchens on freedom of speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0 Interesting to watch this with hindsight and see how wrong he was about Religion and why they were censorious.

arminiusreturns 5y ago
Could you expound on what you mean? I must have missed it.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  He made the point that religious organisations tried to restrict freedom of speech in order to silence activist groups they didn't agree with (which at the time was true), but also suggested a causal relationship between the fact that they held "primitive" beliefs and their willingness to censor. If you look at how society has evolved over the last 15 years, the opposite has come true. Activists are successfully limiting speech they find offensive through legislation and intimidation, and one of the strongest defenders of "full" freedom of speech has now become the religious far-right. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the notion of "full" freedom of speech (which we don't actually have in Australia; only an implied right to freedom of political communication to the extent that is necessary to keep democracy running), but you can't deny that religion is no longer the enemy of free speech.
  - arminiusreturns 5y ago
    Actually I think I could deny it, because the issue is more complex than a boolean. While yes, certain religions have increased in their freedom of speech rhetoric, some of them still have death penalties for things like blasphemy (which in some cases includes cartoon drawings, apparently), and that hasn't really changed.