4 ms·

> Though you're probably too young to remember it, Usenet had unmoderated free speech for about 25 years. To the point that it became dangerous to use a Usenet

> Though you're probably too young to remember it, Usenet had unmoderated free speech for about 25 years. To the point that it became dangerous to use a Usenet browser that would automatically download & display attachments because extremely illegal content would be displayed. God forbid you were running a server, because that was getting pretty close to “possessing” that shit in your data storage. Unmoderated Usenet became a hell hole. Regulation is, IMO, preferable to seeing unsolicited illegal pornography in one’s social media firehouse. I will argue that no civil society has ever had a truly free press. To my knowledge, there has never been legal press publication of the images Usenet propagated.

kragen 4y ago
maybe the problem is that you live in a place where 'extremely illegal content' is a phrase that makes sense to you. if you live somewhere that criminalizes possession of certain information of course you are not going to want access to free speech; at any moment you could come into accidental possession of photos of tiananmen square. but that's a problem created by your local laws, not by unmoderated free speech
- Zak 4y ago
  Let's not be abstract here. The content in question was child sexual abuse photographs. Those are illegal almost everywhere (I do not know of any exceptions). Most people think those should be illegal to distribute or intentionally possess. I think that; there is a victim who suffered real harm, which is compounded by distribution of images of their abuse. Perhaps you do not, but you'll probably find that opinion falls under PG's "What You Can't Say".
- moistly 4y ago
  Are you telling me that you live where it is legal to possess, let alone publish/distribute/“free speech”, photographs of children being raped? Because that is literally what happened circa I’m going to say 1992ish on Usenet, and not in overly obscure newsgroups, but also the ordinary default newsgroups. There is no unmoderated free speech because sick freaks will always do horrible things with their speech if they think they can get away with it. This is as factual as gravity: unmoderated free speech will never be legal speech. Further, you don’t want unmoderated free speech. You cannot unsee those photos.

kragen 4y ago

maybe the problem is that you live in a place where 'extremely illegal content' is a phrase that makes sense to you. if you live somewhere that criminalizes possession of certain information of course you are not going to want access to free speech; at any moment you could come into accidental possession of photos of tiananmen square. but that's a problem created by your local laws, not by unmoderated free speech

Zak 4y ago
Let's not be abstract here. The content in question was child sexual abuse photographs. Those are illegal almost everywhere (I do not know of any exceptions). Most people think those should be illegal to distribute or intentionally possess. I think that; there is a victim who suffered real harm, which is compounded by distribution of images of their abuse. Perhaps you do not, but you'll probably find that opinion falls under PG's "What You Can't Say".
moistly 4y ago
Are you telling me that you live where it is legal to possess, let alone publish/distribute/“free speech”, photographs of children being raped? Because that is literally what happened circa I’m going to say 1992ish on Usenet, and not in overly obscure newsgroups, but also the ordinary default newsgroups. There is no unmoderated free speech because sick freaks will always do horrible things with their speech if they think they can get away with it. This is as factual as gravity: unmoderated free speech will never be legal speech. Further, you don’t want unmoderated free speech. You cannot unsee those photos.