4 ms·

No matter what, you won't have free speech; you will have censored/moderated speech where the users or mods vote it down. Some will vote it down because they di

No matter what, you won't have free speech; you will have censored/moderated speech where the users or mods vote it down. Some will vote it down because they disagree, others because they find it offensive or wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet%27s_Own_Boy Look towards Aaron Swartz on how he wanted information to be free and not behind a paywall. He wanted true Democracy and freedom of speech without being censored.

ff12wq111 1y ago
You're absolutely right about the fundamental tension here. Aaron's vision of truly free information is inspiring, and his work shaped how I think about these problems. The challenge is that even the most open platforms eventually hit practical problems - spam, harassment, off-topic flooding. The question becomes: who decides what stays and what goes? What you're describing sounds like the difference between censorship (authority-driven) and curation (community-driven). Maybe the goal isn't eliminating all filtering, but making the process transparent and democratic?
- ff12wq111 1y ago
  I'm curious: in your view, is there a way to honor Aaron's vision while still keeping discussions useful? Or do you think any form of community moderation compromises that ideal?
  - orionblastar 1y ago
    Moderation compromises that ideal of a true democracy and free speech. Look at what happened to Reddit, as users and whole subs can be banned by moderators/administrators. Anything they don't like is just banned.
    - ff12wq111 1y ago
      Exactly . That's actually why we're experimenting with no traditional moderation in our new community - just transparent community governance where the rules themselves are democratically controlled. Aaron's vision shouldn't require compromising on either democracy or free speech.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ff12wq111 1y ago

You're absolutely right about the fundamental tension here. Aaron's vision of truly free information is inspiring, and his work shaped how I think about these problems. The challenge is that even the most open platforms eventually hit practical problems - spam, harassment, off-topic flooding. The question becomes: who decides what stays and what goes? What you're describing sounds like the difference between censorship (authority-driven) and curation (community-driven). Maybe the goal isn't eliminating all filtering, but making the process transparent and democratic?

ff12wq111 1y ago
I'm curious: in your view, is there a way to honor Aaron's vision while still keeping discussions useful? Or do you think any form of community moderation compromises that ideal?
- orionblastar 1y ago
  Moderation compromises that ideal of a true democracy and free speech. Look at what happened to Reddit, as users and whole subs can be banned by moderators/administrators. Anything they don't like is just banned.
  - ff12wq111 1y ago
    Exactly . That's actually why we're experimenting with no traditional moderation in our new community - just transparent community governance where the rules themselves are democratically controlled. Aaron's vision shouldn't require compromising on either democracy or free speech.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]