4 ms·

I agree with your statement in the theoretical. However I disagree in practice because of this: > If others don't like those biases they are free to create the

I agree with your statement in the theoretical. However I disagree in practice because of this: > If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases. Those who create alternatives are attacked, chased, banned, deplatformed. Even if a webhost is happy to work with you, the credit card network may not be or their bank may ban them. Not that the signal doesn't find a way - the good work of Anna's archive and all that - but it's not just "go build your own platform". It becomes "fight at every turn for your basic existence".

pessimizer 3y ago
The market of ideas fails under capitalism. The market of ideas is denominated in votes, but capitalism requires it to be denominated in dollars. The market of ideas also fails under governments and corporations who pay thousands of people to work covertly and overtly to eradicate ideas.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  The problem isn't Capitalism. In Capitalism we can simply buy our services and anyone who can fund can play. What is happening when a bank refuses to do business with someone, when App stores ban a twitter clone and prevent sideloading, is not Capitalism. It's ideological. It's about service to an end outside just capital. Capitalism is the only system that freedom of speech can exist under. No Communist or Socialist author has ever entertained a freedom of speech concept - it is contrary to a centralized government. Such systems can not even handle mild political dissent and must (both in the theoretical and practical) literally kill or exile anyone pushing against the central authority. Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because disagreement is profitable.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "No Communist or Socialist author has ever entertained a freedom of speech concept " Maybe you have heard of Animal Farm or 1984, written by George Orwell? Or do you think, he wrote those books to endorse the concept?
    - pixl97 3y ago
      No authoritarian has entertained a concept of freedom of speech. Just so you're aware, yes, capitalist can be authoritarian too.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        I don't get your point, do you claim Orwell is authorian and anti free speach?
      - lmm 3y ago
        The point is the converse: socialism can be liberal too, as exemplified by Orwell.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because disagreement is profitable. Eh, that depends. The US in particular like to 'two party' problems. Capitalism loves two sides in problems, but that is very problematic if a problem is multi-polar and not bi-polar. You're also confusing socialist/communist with authoritarian. Capitalist systems are completely fine with being authoritarian if its profitable.
pixl97 3y ago
The existence of society demands this in practice. This is how humanity has worked at least since the beginning of agriculture, and likely long before that. Step out of line too far, and someone caves your head in. At best we can hope for is that the rock holder is accepting, and not a fascist. You will find that it is impossible to create a society that does not exist in this manner. Since a society that accepts everybody also means it accepts people that don't accept everyone by means of violence, hence destroying a society that accepts everyone.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  You're conflating actual violence and "viewpoints I dislike". Yes every society will resort to vigilantism to protect itself in the absence of a policing power. But death threats to someone because they made a tweet you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to control speech isn't about protecting yourself from violence - though that excuse is often used. It's a form of denial, of shutting down uncomfortable debate. It's an ideological sort of end, like a dictator who has a pathological need to execute his critics. The "inner ring" of acceptable opinions grows ever smaller - it has to. It's not about making the world better, it's about attacking outsiders and the beast always needs new outsiders.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >But death threats to someone because they made a tweet you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to control speech isn't about protecting yourself from violence - It's about causing violence. It's no different than "You happened to say something against our religious book, don't do it again or you'll get hurt". Outsiders are a useful target because sometimes they are also the monster. This is the effect of existing in a reality with uncertainty. Accept everyone uncritically and you may be attacked by those you accept, this leads to fear, that fear is then manipulated by those that want power. There is no solution here, there is only the attempt to balance between malicious outsiders and malicious insiders.

pessimizer 3y ago

The market of ideas fails under capitalism. The market of ideas is denominated in votes, but capitalism requires it to be denominated in dollars. The market of ideas also fails under governments and corporations who pay thousands of people to work covertly and overtly to eradicate ideas.

vorpalhex 3y ago
The problem isn't Capitalism. In Capitalism we can simply buy our services and anyone who can fund can play. What is happening when a bank refuses to do business with someone, when App stores ban a twitter clone and prevent sideloading, is not Capitalism. It's ideological. It's about service to an end outside just capital. Capitalism is the only system that freedom of speech can exist under. No Communist or Socialist author has ever entertained a freedom of speech concept - it is contrary to a centralized government. Such systems can not even handle mild political dissent and must (both in the theoretical and practical) literally kill or exile anyone pushing against the central authority. Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because disagreement is profitable.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "No Communist or Socialist author has ever entertained a freedom of speech concept " Maybe you have heard of Animal Farm or 1984, written by George Orwell? Or do you think, he wrote those books to endorse the concept?
  - pixl97 3y ago
    No authoritarian has entertained a concept of freedom of speech. Just so you're aware, yes, capitalist can be authoritarian too.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      I don't get your point, do you claim Orwell is authorian and anti free speach?
    - lmm 3y ago
      The point is the converse: socialism can be liberal too, as exemplified by Orwell.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >Capitalism can always tolerate disagreement because disagreement is profitable. Eh, that depends. The US in particular like to 'two party' problems. Capitalism loves two sides in problems, but that is very problematic if a problem is multi-polar and not bi-polar. You're also confusing socialist/communist with authoritarian. Capitalist systems are completely fine with being authoritarian if its profitable.

pixl97 3y ago

The existence of society demands this in practice. This is how humanity has worked at least since the beginning of agriculture, and likely long before that. Step out of line too far, and someone caves your head in. At best we can hope for is that the rock holder is accepting, and not a fascist. You will find that it is impossible to create a society that does not exist in this manner. Since a society that accepts everybody also means it accepts people that don't accept everyone by means of violence, hence destroying a society that accepts everyone.

vorpalhex 3y ago
You're conflating actual violence and "viewpoints I dislike". Yes every society will resort to vigilantism to protect itself in the absence of a policing power. But death threats to someone because they made a tweet you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to control speech isn't about protecting yourself from violence - though that excuse is often used. It's a form of denial, of shutting down uncomfortable debate. It's an ideological sort of end, like a dictator who has a pathological need to execute his critics. The "inner ring" of acceptable opinions grows ever smaller - it has to. It's not about making the world better, it's about attacking outsiders and the beast always needs new outsiders.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >But death threats to someone because they made a tweet you disagree with or abusing your power as a bank to control speech isn't about protecting yourself from violence - It's about causing violence. It's no different than "You happened to say something against our religious book, don't do it again or you'll get hurt". Outsiders are a useful target because sometimes they are also the monster. This is the effect of existing in a reality with uncertainty. Accept everyone uncritically and you may be attacked by those you accept, this leads to fear, that fear is then manipulated by those that want power. There is no solution here, there is only the attempt to balance between malicious outsiders and malicious insiders.