4 ms·

This is an odd minority viewpoint for HN actually. I find most people feel rather empowered by the decentralized nature of mastodon… or email for that matter.

This is an odd minority viewpoint for HN actually. I find most people feel rather empowered by the decentralized nature of mastodon… or email for that matter. Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. People aren’t required to publish your work just because you complain. The difference here is you can just hook into the same decentralized system the publisher is using, and subvert them by finding another instance to use or even making your own! With no difference in reach or power. Why is that bad? The seems to be MUCH better for you.

Edd314159 4y ago
> Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. People aren’t required to publish your work just because you complain. This is a strawman. Commenter said anything about the right to free speech, only about the willingness to be exposed to opposing viewpoints. We all know that Bob is not obligated to listen to Alice, and he is not required to host a venue for her opinions. But Bob's eagerness to run away to a place where there is no risk of seeing Alice's view, while not necessarily bad (if you want to live in a bubble, live in a bubble), it is _not_ a virtue.
- notnaut 4y ago
  Ignoring people with opinions that are sophomoric, bigoted, or can’t be differentiated from trolling saves an immense amount of time and frustration. Filtering noise can surely be closer to something a person with a healthy attitude towards other peoples opinions would do as opposed to letting every single person get their 30 seconds on the megaphone, even after their third or fourth flat earth tirade.
- antiterra 4y ago
  What exactly is not a virtue about Bob’s eagerness to be able to eat lunch with friends and associates without having random people poking in and saying cruel things about his existence?
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I’m really confused by this rhetoric, because the logical conclusion is that Bob should at minimum be exposed to things he doesn’t want to be exposed to regardless of what the thing is because of the potential Bob might be missing out on a good point. But it also means if Alice’s view is sending Bob death threats and threatening to murder his family, Bob should be exposed to that as equally as if Alice’s view was that pineapples are a superior topping on pizza?
  - brabel 4y ago
    It's very disappointing that you cannot distinguish between "opposing views" and "death threats". Let me try to help: one is not illegal so it should in principle be allowed on a platform that is seeking an honest discussion. The other is a crime and can be dealt withing the framework of the law. If the person commiting crimes is behind an anonymous identity, I think that's where the problem actually lies - perhaps the administrator should be compelled by law to disclose the real person behind the anonymous profile (is the Mastodon community against that)?! If what they've done is indeed against the law, then a ban is definitely justified (and may be required by law - i.e. we're back to the rule of law, not mob rules), no one will argue against that... but what I am against is banning people simply for having opposing views, which is what we actually see happening. Do you see people complaining that someone who commits crimes online should not be banned from anything? That's not my argument or anyone else's argument, so your response comes as a complete strawman.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      I think you’re trying to make exceptions because the actual rhetoric and logic this leads to is distasteful. Using “well it’s illegal” is just shallow logic to differentiate speech that should or shouldn’t force people to expose to as is that people should be exposed to whatever they consent to be exposed to. Frankly, if Alice is seeking honest disagreement discussion, Alice should seek to talk with people who consent to that kind of engagement with her, instead of chasing after Bob who would rather not engage. If Alice is having difficulty finding those people, maybe her source selection is simply quite uncommon; lots of highly controversial subject matter applies almost exclusively to small parts of the population, and a minority of that minority is generally available to debate on that subject. I’m sure Alice can have spirited debate about toppings on pizza, a subject that a larger set of people are usually willing to disagree and discuss about. If she insists on trying to force a minority of a minority to debate with her, I think a friend group is fairly justified in defending Bob by ousting Alice, as Alice is unable to respect people’s basic boundaries like “can we change the subject”.
koheripbal 4y ago
> Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. This is a commonly parroted error. The First Amendment to the US Constitution which protects freedom of expression is mostly between the gov't and you... ...but the CONCEPT of freedom of speech is an ethical concept that goes well beyond the roll of government. It is about ensuring the rights of minority speech and controversial opinions. Speech that makes you uncomfortable can be some of the most valuable speech people need to hear. I often find it telling when you ask someone who favors social media censorship if they would prefer themselves be shielded from uncomfortable speech, or if they specifically want everyone to be shielded. Without fail, they want censorship for everyone else - not themselves.
- graypegg 4y ago
  I see you’re coming at this from a moral stance where I do agree with you, it’s not great on a personal level to not be challenged. But does that apply here? We’re talking about private citizens, running a publication platform. If you went to your local community newsletter, asked to put in an article saying “this community is full of bigots, and none of you want to hear about it” and they deny including your article, there’s no legal recourse for you. Sure, there’s the ideals of the marketplace of ideas, but there’s also very real restrictions on speech because society wouldn’t function if everyone was required to hear and consider every voice. I’m also not American, so I’m no expert here obviously. I could be totally wrong on this and maybe there is legal precedent for forcing a private publication to publish something after some sort of legal free speech complaint.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    There is also the concept that once corporations reach as certain SCALE, then they ethically have some responsibilities towards the principles society asks of government. In 1776, a person shouting obscenities in a pub, would get duly thrown out. He had the freedom to shout in the park, at a coffee shop, in the library, or in any of a thousand other places in town. Today, political discourse takes places almost entirely online and via private corporations. Google isn't a pub on 2nd ave and 54th street. It's ALL THE ESTABLISHMENTS IN TOWN. ...or at least it, along with 3-4 other of the global tech oligopolies. It's important to note that while massive global tech companies are not formally part of government, they are very integrated with gov't through lobbying, gov't contracts, and direct political sponsorship, and a variety of other individual contacts and arrangements. As a result of their SCALE of their control, they implicitly inherit some ethical obligations to allow uncomfortable speech to occur. I don't believe in limitless speech rights - but the current limits are vague and selectively enforced and thus easily susceptible to political bias - which is the most dangerous kind of censorship.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> This is an odd minority viewpoint for HN actually. I find most people feel rather empowered by the decentralized nature of mastodon… or email for that matter. Mastodon is decentralized at the protocol level. It's the opposite of that at the social level. The mob rule may be "decentralized", but it turns out it still sucks. Cross one extremist and get accused of being a bigot / -ist du jour, and them and their friend will run you out of town. No big deal, you say, you can always switch towns? Except no, because the extremists will follow and denounce you for your "bigotry" / -ism, and threaten to do the same to anyone willing to harbor you, and then no town will want you in, because none of them want to be cut off of everyone else. On the main subnet, it's every instance pointing a gun at every other one - even if most believe the common rules are extreme, no one trusts others enough to challenge them. The irony is, this is basically rediscovering the lessons of past thousand years of civilization. Mastodon is the digital equivalent of a sea of towns afraid of their own people and other towns alike, due to roving parties of political officers executing criminals and wrongthinkers alike. Somewhere along the way people figured that rule of law, presumption of innocence, due process, proportionality of punishment, civilization, are nice things to have. Anyway. Been there, done that, tried to enjoy it while pretending there is no problem, until the admin retired the instance. I don't feel like participating again. I'm off both Twitter and Mastodon. As much as I hate corporate ad-poisoned Internet, I do have to grant it that it's the more honest one - people will do bad things to each other in pursuit of ad revenue (or revenue in general), but at least they're not pretending too much. They're not bending their own minds past breaking point to feel OK with delivering mob punishment and signalling allegiance to not become targets themselves.
- graypegg 4y ago
  If I’m being honest, that’s a bit dramatic. The internet has always been at least a little clique-y. If the group-think and witch hunting is as hard on you as you seem to describe, I can assure you there are MANY others in the same position. So make your own thing. Why’s that bad? Why are you responsible for expanding their minds and exposing the group-think sheep to new viewpoints? Live in your own rebel communities. Basically like the internet has operated for the last 30 years. The adventurous among them will venture over when they want.
bluGill 4y ago
What is bad is the missing balance. I need to see opposing views (there are more than two sides)

Edd314159 4y ago

> Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. People aren’t required to publish your work just because you complain. This is a strawman. Commenter said anything about the right to free speech, only about the willingness to be exposed to opposing viewpoints. We all know that Bob is not obligated to listen to Alice, and he is not required to host a venue for her opinions. But Bob's eagerness to run away to a place where there is no risk of seeing Alice's view, while not necessarily bad (if you want to live in a bubble, live in a bubble), it is _not_ a virtue.

notnaut 4y ago
Ignoring people with opinions that are sophomoric, bigoted, or can’t be differentiated from trolling saves an immense amount of time and frustration. Filtering noise can surely be closer to something a person with a healthy attitude towards other peoples opinions would do as opposed to letting every single person get their 30 seconds on the megaphone, even after their third or fourth flat earth tirade.
antiterra 4y ago
What exactly is not a virtue about Bob’s eagerness to be able to eat lunch with friends and associates without having random people poking in and saying cruel things about his existence?
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I’m really confused by this rhetoric, because the logical conclusion is that Bob should at minimum be exposed to things he doesn’t want to be exposed to regardless of what the thing is because of the potential Bob might be missing out on a good point. But it also means if Alice’s view is sending Bob death threats and threatening to murder his family, Bob should be exposed to that as equally as if Alice’s view was that pineapples are a superior topping on pizza?
- brabel 4y ago
  It's very disappointing that you cannot distinguish between "opposing views" and "death threats". Let me try to help: one is not illegal so it should in principle be allowed on a platform that is seeking an honest discussion. The other is a crime and can be dealt withing the framework of the law. If the person commiting crimes is behind an anonymous identity, I think that's where the problem actually lies - perhaps the administrator should be compelled by law to disclose the real person behind the anonymous profile (is the Mastodon community against that)?! If what they've done is indeed against the law, then a ban is definitely justified (and may be required by law - i.e. we're back to the rule of law, not mob rules), no one will argue against that... but what I am against is banning people simply for having opposing views, which is what we actually see happening. Do you see people complaining that someone who commits crimes online should not be banned from anything? That's not my argument or anyone else's argument, so your response comes as a complete strawman.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    I think you’re trying to make exceptions because the actual rhetoric and logic this leads to is distasteful. Using “well it’s illegal” is just shallow logic to differentiate speech that should or shouldn’t force people to expose to as is that people should be exposed to whatever they consent to be exposed to. Frankly, if Alice is seeking honest disagreement discussion, Alice should seek to talk with people who consent to that kind of engagement with her, instead of chasing after Bob who would rather not engage. If Alice is having difficulty finding those people, maybe her source selection is simply quite uncommon; lots of highly controversial subject matter applies almost exclusively to small parts of the population, and a minority of that minority is generally available to debate on that subject. I’m sure Alice can have spirited debate about toppings on pizza, a subject that a larger set of people are usually willing to disagree and discuss about. If she insists on trying to force a minority of a minority to debate with her, I think a friend group is fairly justified in defending Bob by ousting Alice, as Alice is unable to respect people’s basic boundaries like “can we change the subject”.

koheripbal 4y ago

> Your right to freedom of speech is between you and the government. This is a commonly parroted error. The First Amendment to the US Constitution which protects freedom of expression is mostly between the gov't and you... ...but the CONCEPT of freedom of speech is an ethical concept that goes well beyond the roll of government. It is about ensuring the rights of minority speech and controversial opinions. Speech that makes you uncomfortable can be some of the most valuable speech people need to hear. I often find it telling when you ask someone who favors social media censorship if they would prefer themselves be shielded from uncomfortable speech, or if they specifically want everyone to be shielded. Without fail, they want censorship for everyone else - not themselves.

graypegg 4y ago
I see you’re coming at this from a moral stance where I do agree with you, it’s not great on a personal level to not be challenged. But does that apply here? We’re talking about private citizens, running a publication platform. If you went to your local community newsletter, asked to put in an article saying “this community is full of bigots, and none of you want to hear about it” and they deny including your article, there’s no legal recourse for you. Sure, there’s the ideals of the marketplace of ideas, but there’s also very real restrictions on speech because society wouldn’t function if everyone was required to hear and consider every voice. I’m also not American, so I’m no expert here obviously. I could be totally wrong on this and maybe there is legal precedent for forcing a private publication to publish something after some sort of legal free speech complaint.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  There is also the concept that once corporations reach as certain SCALE, then they ethically have some responsibilities towards the principles society asks of government. In 1776, a person shouting obscenities in a pub, would get duly thrown out. He had the freedom to shout in the park, at a coffee shop, in the library, or in any of a thousand other places in town. Today, political discourse takes places almost entirely online and via private corporations. Google isn't a pub on 2nd ave and 54th street. It's ALL THE ESTABLISHMENTS IN TOWN. ...or at least it, along with 3-4 other of the global tech oligopolies. It's important to note that while massive global tech companies are not formally part of government, they are very integrated with gov't through lobbying, gov't contracts, and direct political sponsorship, and a variety of other individual contacts and arrangements. As a result of their SCALE of their control, they implicitly inherit some ethical obligations to allow uncomfortable speech to occur. I don't believe in limitless speech rights - but the current limits are vague and selectively enforced and thus easily susceptible to political bias - which is the most dangerous kind of censorship.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> This is an odd minority viewpoint for HN actually. I find most people feel rather empowered by the decentralized nature of mastodon… or email for that matter. Mastodon is decentralized at the protocol level. It's the opposite of that at the social level. The mob rule may be "decentralized", but it turns out it still sucks. Cross one extremist and get accused of being a bigot / -ist du jour, and them and their friend will run you out of town. No big deal, you say, you can always switch towns? Except no, because the extremists will follow and denounce you for your "bigotry" / -ism, and threaten to do the same to anyone willing to harbor you, and then no town will want you in, because none of them want to be cut off of everyone else. On the main subnet, it's every instance pointing a gun at every other one - even if most believe the common rules are extreme, no one trusts others enough to challenge them. The irony is, this is basically rediscovering the lessons of past thousand years of civilization. Mastodon is the digital equivalent of a sea of towns afraid of their own people and other towns alike, due to roving parties of political officers executing criminals and wrongthinkers alike. Somewhere along the way people figured that rule of law, presumption of innocence, due process, proportionality of punishment, civilization, are nice things to have. Anyway. Been there, done that, tried to enjoy it while pretending there is no problem, until the admin retired the instance. I don't feel like participating again. I'm off both Twitter and Mastodon. As much as I hate corporate ad-poisoned Internet, I do have to grant it that it's the more honest one - people will do bad things to each other in pursuit of ad revenue (or revenue in general), but at least they're not pretending too much. They're not bending their own minds past breaking point to feel OK with delivering mob punishment and signalling allegiance to not become targets themselves.

graypegg 4y ago
If I’m being honest, that’s a bit dramatic. The internet has always been at least a little clique-y. If the group-think and witch hunting is as hard on you as you seem to describe, I can assure you there are MANY others in the same position. So make your own thing. Why’s that bad? Why are you responsible for expanding their minds and exposing the group-think sheep to new viewpoints? Live in your own rebel communities. Basically like the internet has operated for the last 30 years. The adventurous among them will venture over when they want.

bluGill 4y ago

What is bad is the missing balance. I need to see opposing views (there are more than two sides)