4 ms·

> That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. And that would be perfect

> That analogy is bad, as you could equally say that each social network "is a home" and therefore can censor everyone without mercy. And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such. > if you don't like state censorship, just emigrate etc. - The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself is negligible compared to the cost of moving to a different country - To "emigrate" to a different country implies having to abandon your original home country. In some cases, it even means having to renounce your original citizenship. Online, you can have different digital identities. All that is being asked of you is to respect the rules of the home you are in. If this is difficult for you to understand, it's not a problem of your social peers.

cubefox 3y ago
> And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such. The effect of big social media sites blocking free speech are not much different from the state doing it. It's like saying: "You are perfectly allowed to state your opinions! (but only at home, where nobody hears them)" This wouldn't be functionally different from the situation in China. > The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself Doesn't solve the problem, as free speech instances get blocked by the other big instances.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. Sorry, this is complete bullshit. > but only at home, where nobody hears them You can still invite people to your own home. If nobody is hearing it, it's because they are not interested to join you.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    > Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. Your problem is that you hate free speech. You don't want to just choose what you see yourself, you want also censor what other people are allowed see. > You can still invite people to your own home. Yes, that's possible in China as well. According to you, this justifies state censorship. After all, you are only censored in public on social media.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      > That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. This right here shows why you don´t understand why instance-wide blocking might be needed. I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Now, if anyone from my instance follows someone from a "free speech extremist" instance and my server ends up with Nazi propaganda, guess who will be under investigation? Substitute "Nazi propaganda" for "instances for sex-workers who might be victims of people trafficking" if you prefer. > Yes, that's possible in China as well. No, it's not. The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition and they will have the power to hurt you without a fair trial. Eugen is not going to do anything with you if you go talk shit about him on your instance. I know because I did it. ;)
      - cubefox 3y ago
        > I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Of course no admin can do anything about the law. That's in fact what Elon Musk said: The platform should only censor as much as is required by the law. But in practice on Mastodon much more is censored than on Twitter. > The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition The Chinese police will certainly not come if you utter your opinions in your own home, precisely because nobody will hear them. Restricting free speech only to areas where it can't be heared isn't free speech.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  It is totally different than the state doing it, because people are free to associate with other websites, but are not free to associate with other nations.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Imagine if the major social networking sites censored a certain opinion. The effect would be basically the same. Just like if Google removed your website because they don't like your political opinion.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Ok I imagined it, and once again noticed that, no, the "effect" is not the same at all, because once again I'm free to associate with other websites that do not choose to remove my opinion.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        But Google's market dominance is so high that most people won't see your website because it is blocked on Google. The result would be almost the same as if it was blocked everywhere.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        sanderjd 3y ago
        No, a dominant private business is not like a government, for the simple fact that it cannot throw you in jail.

cubefox 3y ago

> And that would be perfectly justifiable. None of the big social media networks are forced to provide service to a customer that they don't want. It's not an utility, it should not be treated as such. The effect of big social media sites blocking free speech are not much different from the state doing it. It's like saying: "You are perfectly allowed to state your opinions! (but only at home, where nobody hears them)" This wouldn't be functionally different from the situation in China. > The cost of creating a Mastodon instance for yourself Doesn't solve the problem, as free speech instances get blocked by the other big instances.

rglullis 3y ago
Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. Sorry, this is complete bullshit. > but only at home, where nobody hears them You can still invite people to your own home. If nobody is hearing it, it's because they are not interested to join you.
- cubefox 3y ago
  > Your problem is not of "free speech". Your problem is that you feel entitled to other people's attention, and you think if you are not "getting heard" by them, you are being censored. That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. Your problem is that you hate free speech. You don't want to just choose what you see yourself, you want also censor what other people are allowed see. > You can still invite people to your own home. Yes, that's possible in China as well. According to you, this justifies state censorship. After all, you are only censored in public on social media.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    > That's false. On social media, everyone is free to follow just the people they want to follow. Muting is also an option. This right here shows why you don´t understand why instance-wide blocking might be needed. I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Now, if anyone from my instance follows someone from a "free speech extremist" instance and my server ends up with Nazi propaganda, guess who will be under investigation? Substitute "Nazi propaganda" for "instances for sex-workers who might be victims of people trafficking" if you prefer. > Yes, that's possible in China as well. No, it's not. The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition and they will have the power to hurt you without a fair trial. Eugen is not going to do anything with you if you go talk shit about him on your instance. I know because I did it. ;)
    - cubefox 3y ago
      > I can give you one clear example: my instance is running in Germany. As such, I need to comply with German laws. Of course no admin can do anything about the law. That's in fact what Elon Musk said: The platform should only censor as much as is required by the law. But in practice on Mastodon much more is censored than on Twitter. > The Chinese police will come after you if you try to organize any type of opposition The Chinese police will certainly not come if you utter your opinions in your own home, precisely because nobody will hear them. Restricting free speech only to areas where it can't be heared isn't free speech.
sanderjd 3y ago
It is totally different than the state doing it, because people are free to associate with other websites, but are not free to associate with other nations.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Imagine if the major social networking sites censored a certain opinion. The effect would be basically the same. Just like if Google removed your website because they don't like your political opinion.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Ok I imagined it, and once again noticed that, no, the "effect" is not the same at all, because once again I'm free to associate with other websites that do not choose to remove my opinion.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      But Google's market dominance is so high that most people won't see your website because it is blocked on Google. The result would be almost the same as if it was blocked everywhere.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        No, a dominant private business is not like a government, for the simple fact that it cannot throw you in jail.