4 ms·

I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist (side-eye to the guy who ruined the term), but IMO one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this c

by brookst 8mo ago

I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist (side-eye to the guy who ruined the term), but IMO one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this conflation of “right to speak” with “right to be heard”. People have a right to ignore speech, and to establish standards for speech on their private property. If there is market demand for a service that filters out content based on ideology, whether mastodon.social or Fox News, so be it. It can be toxic and a social negative, but any fix is worse than the problem.

tacitusarc 8mo ago
Imagine, if you would, that the strict libertarians had much more influence in shaping the country. So much so that the roads are toll roads, the parks require a fee, and almost no libraries exist because the ROI just isn’t there. Furthermore, there is no anti-trust legislation, and as a result, there are only a few companies that control all meeting places: the parks, the coffee shops, the roads, the pubs. And they have set up constant monitoring technology. If you want to set up a protest on a street corner, it better align with the corporation’s views, or they will ban your access to the roads. If you want to talk with friends at the pub, don’t say anything out of line or you’re not coming back. Events can take place in parks, but make sure you only discuss the weather. Of course, this is fine: you can always just meet at your own home and say what you think, because that is your own property. … I realize the analogy is overwrought, but there just doesn’t exist an online equivalent of a public space, and ideological enforcement is trivial. Comparing it to the rules we have for physical spaces mean we need to imagine what those physical spaces would be like if they operated like online spaces, and frankly the result is dystopian (in my opinion). Surely the solution isn’t just to dismiss it as a non-problem? Or, I suppose, to stop looking for a solution because… solutions so far considered have negative side effects, which feels (practically speaking) the same to me.
- krapp 8mo ago
  Physical public spaces are regulated. Laws still apply there. There are countless online spaces which operated like physical public spaces, where anything legal goes. Move off of the mainstream web and even the illegal stuff is allowed. You can literally run your own instance of whatever application on the Fediverse and follow whomever you want. No matter how radical or extremist your ideology is, someone will happily host it. It's only a problem if one insists that all online spaces must be run under the same anarchic principles and must be forced to give anyone a platform, but that's far more dystopian than what we have now.
trentnix 8mo ago
Another example of "everything before the word but is horse ****".
bediger4000 8mo ago
one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this conflation of “right to speak” with “right to be heard” Thank you for this tight summary. As a greybeard, I'll note this conflation was present from very early on, and it was partly responsible for the heat death of Usenet. No amount of logical, prepared rebuttal budges people from the idea that the two things are the same. The conflation might be a human tendency, a cognitive bias that almost everyone has.
croes 8mo ago
I have no problem getting blocked but my only block on the Fediverse was accompanied by a block for all users on the same instance as me.
- scoofy 8mo ago
  So start your own instance. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
  - croes 8mo ago
    You are missing the point. Why where all the others on the same instance blocked? They did nothing and their only connection to me is we are registered on the same instance. BTW You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard is nonsense. By that logic even North Korea has freedom speech. Freedom of speech just doesn’t mean unlimited reach and limitless speech
    - scoofy 8mo ago
      In North Korea, you can’t start your own instance to say what you want. They will still jail you for what you say. That’s the actual point. The fact that other people want to be on a system that blocks you is their business, not yours. The point of the fediverse is you get to choose your own censorship.
      - cykros 8mo ago
        If you got to choose your own censorship it'd be nice. As it stands, other instances can decide to defederate with what you're on. Sometimes, even knocking off servers you had connectivity with that were indirect. The Fediverse is to Nostr what the legacy telephone system was to the Internet.
        scoofy 8mo ago
        >If you got to choose your own censorship it'd be nice. As it stands, other instances can decide to defederate with what you're on. That is not censorship! This conversation is frustrating exactly because people think a group “excluding” someone is “censoring” them. Except that's not what censorship is. Censorship is about you not being allowed to say what you want on a sign outside your own bar. You complaining about a different bar, not letting you in because they don’t like you. That’s not censorship, that’s just people being jerks to you… and that is allowed. Nobody has to listen to you if they don't like you. Nobody has to even let you in the door to where they hang out if they don't like you, especially if the reason they kicked you out was something you said.
lolurnt 8mo ago
[flagged]
- ses1984 8mo ago
  Free speech does exist in the law, not just as an ethical ideal. The law states that the government can’t infringe on your speech. Anyone who is not the government is free to block your ass if they don’t like you or what you’re saying. Not all speech is worth defending. The only people who benefit from free speech absolutism are the ones with only horrible things to say.
  - xigoi 8mo ago
    I am fine with blocking. However, it should be me who decides whose speech I don’t want to see, not someone else.
    - __d 8mo ago
      So run your own instance. Using someone else’s instance is just outsourcing your decisions. Other people might be ok with or even enthusiastic about that, but that shouldn’t be your problem.
  - GOD_Over_Djinn 8mo ago
    I don’t think that anyone has an issue with the block feature. The problem is when the platforms themselves decide to arbitrate which viewpoints are allowed. This was clearly visible during Covid, when divergent viewpoints were penalized aggressively.
  - jasomill 8mo ago
    The union of everything considered horrible by significant fractions of the American public over the years suggests otherwise.
raffael_de 8mo ago
why not let people say whatever they want? you already hinted the appropriate solution which is that you don't have to listen.
- toss1 8mo ago
  If a social network has an ACTUAL straight chronological feed of only accts you follow, or lists you curate, that works great. Somebody posts abhorrent Nazi racist crap, or lies about what is happening, you shut them off, and they'll never be heard by you again. Yes, you need to see/hear the crap or propaganda once for each Nazi or liar, but that's it. The problem is nearly every social platform needs to increase your engagement get you to click or scroll just another time so they get to show you more adverts and make more money and claim more 'engagement' to juice their stock price. So along with having to listen to the advertisements, you ALSO are REQUIRED to see/listen to the crap and lies. The good solution — "you don't have to listen" — is not an actual option in the real world. (NB: This is why Section 230 should only protect web providers if they have no algorithm. Once they have an algo, they exercise more editorial control than any newspaper or broadcast editor — they ARE responsible for the content, not because they posted it, their users did, but because they routed it to you.)
  - raffael_de 8mo ago
    the context here is the fediverse and not social platforms based on financial incentives.
- Arainach 8mo ago
  Community members are a finite resource. Moderators are a downright scare resource. When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community and are left with a toxic cesspool that no one wants to visit. Your moderators will burn out and leave as well. That's a very reliable way for your space to die. Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it, and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win.
  - 8mo ago
cykros 8mo ago
"Market demand." If I've got a profile on let's say, mastodon.social, and I have a following, and people I follow across other servers, and then mastodon.social decides that due to a few people over on outrageousposts.social, I can no longer access their content, nor they mine, I am left with exactly two choices: write that portion of my network off as a complete loss, or create a completely new profile on a new instance, and build up a new network from scratch. That anyone puts up with this state of affairs suggests to me that people just don't know Nostr solved this problem 3 years ago. I get that compared to Facebook, Twitter, etc, Mastodon does seem like an improvement even with this state of affairs -- after all, you at least CAN just create a new profile rather than getting booted off of the network entirely. It was handy for a few years. But a better alternative has been created, and I for one won't be looking back.
incomingpain 8mo ago
[dead]

by brookst 8mo ago

tacitusarc 8mo ago

Imagine, if you would, that the strict libertarians had much more influence in shaping the country. So much so that the roads are toll roads, the parks require a fee, and almost no libraries exist because the ROI just isn’t there. Furthermore, there is no anti-trust legislation, and as a result, there are only a few companies that control all meeting places: the parks, the coffee shops, the roads, the pubs. And they have set up constant monitoring technology. If you want to set up a protest on a street corner, it better align with the corporation’s views, or they will ban your access to the roads. If you want to talk with friends at the pub, don’t say anything out of line or you’re not coming back. Events can take place in parks, but make sure you only discuss the weather. Of course, this is fine: you can always just meet at your own home and say what you think, because that is your own property. … I realize the analogy is overwrought, but there just doesn’t exist an online equivalent of a public space, and ideological enforcement is trivial. Comparing it to the rules we have for physical spaces mean we need to imagine what those physical spaces would be like if they operated like online spaces, and frankly the result is dystopian (in my opinion). Surely the solution isn’t just to dismiss it as a non-problem? Or, I suppose, to stop looking for a solution because… solutions so far considered have negative side effects, which feels (practically speaking) the same to me.

krapp 8mo ago
Physical public spaces are regulated. Laws still apply there. There are countless online spaces which operated like physical public spaces, where anything legal goes. Move off of the mainstream web and even the illegal stuff is allowed. You can literally run your own instance of whatever application on the Fediverse and follow whomever you want. No matter how radical or extremist your ideology is, someone will happily host it. It's only a problem if one insists that all online spaces must be run under the same anarchic principles and must be forced to give anyone a platform, but that's far more dystopian than what we have now.

trentnix 8mo ago

Another example of "everything before the word but is horse ****".

bediger4000 8mo ago

one of the worst things to happen to free speech is this conflation of “right to speak” with “right to be heard” Thank you for this tight summary. As a greybeard, I'll note this conflation was present from very early on, and it was partly responsible for the heat death of Usenet. No amount of logical, prepared rebuttal budges people from the idea that the two things are the same. The conflation might be a human tendency, a cognitive bias that almost everyone has.

croes 8mo ago

I have no problem getting blocked but my only block on the Fediverse was accompanied by a block for all users on the same instance as me.

scoofy 8mo ago
So start your own instance. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
- croes 8mo ago
  You are missing the point. Why where all the others on the same instance blocked? They did nothing and their only connection to me is we are registered on the same instance. BTW You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard is nonsense. By that logic even North Korea has freedom speech. Freedom of speech just doesn’t mean unlimited reach and limitless speech
  - scoofy 8mo ago
    In North Korea, you can’t start your own instance to say what you want. They will still jail you for what you say. That’s the actual point. The fact that other people want to be on a system that blocks you is their business, not yours. The point of the fediverse is you get to choose your own censorship.
    - cykros 8mo ago
      If you got to choose your own censorship it'd be nice. As it stands, other instances can decide to defederate with what you're on. Sometimes, even knocking off servers you had connectivity with that were indirect. The Fediverse is to Nostr what the legacy telephone system was to the Internet.
      - scoofy 8mo ago
        >If you got to choose your own censorship it'd be nice. As it stands, other instances can decide to defederate with what you're on. That is not censorship! This conversation is frustrating exactly because people think a group “excluding” someone is “censoring” them. Except that's not what censorship is. Censorship is about you not being allowed to say what you want on a sign outside your own bar. You complaining about a different bar, not letting you in because they don’t like you. That’s not censorship, that’s just people being jerks to you… and that is allowed. Nobody has to listen to you if they don't like you. Nobody has to even let you in the door to where they hang out if they don't like you, especially if the reason they kicked you out was something you said.

lolurnt 8mo ago

[flagged]

ses1984 8mo ago
Free speech does exist in the law, not just as an ethical ideal. The law states that the government can’t infringe on your speech. Anyone who is not the government is free to block your ass if they don’t like you or what you’re saying. Not all speech is worth defending. The only people who benefit from free speech absolutism are the ones with only horrible things to say.
- xigoi 8mo ago
  I am fine with blocking. However, it should be me who decides whose speech I don’t want to see, not someone else.
  - __d 8mo ago
    So run your own instance. Using someone else’s instance is just outsourcing your decisions. Other people might be ok with or even enthusiastic about that, but that shouldn’t be your problem.
- GOD_Over_Djinn 8mo ago
  I don’t think that anyone has an issue with the block feature. The problem is when the platforms themselves decide to arbitrate which viewpoints are allowed. This was clearly visible during Covid, when divergent viewpoints were penalized aggressively.
- jasomill 8mo ago
  The union of everything considered horrible by significant fractions of the American public over the years suggests otherwise.

raffael_de 8mo ago

why not let people say whatever they want? you already hinted the appropriate solution which is that you don't have to listen.

toss1 8mo ago
If a social network has an ACTUAL straight chronological feed of only accts you follow, or lists you curate, that works great. Somebody posts abhorrent Nazi racist crap, or lies about what is happening, you shut them off, and they'll never be heard by you again. Yes, you need to see/hear the crap or propaganda once for each Nazi or liar, but that's it. The problem is nearly every social platform needs to increase your engagement get you to click or scroll just another time so they get to show you more adverts and make more money and claim more 'engagement' to juice their stock price. So along with having to listen to the advertisements, you ALSO are REQUIRED to see/listen to the crap and lies. The good solution — "you don't have to listen" — is not an actual option in the real world. (NB: This is why Section 230 should only protect web providers if they have no algorithm. Once they have an algo, they exercise more editorial control than any newspaper or broadcast editor — they ARE responsible for the content, not because they posted it, their users did, but because they routed it to you.)
- raffael_de 8mo ago
  the context here is the fediverse and not social platforms based on financial incentives.
Arainach 8mo ago
Community members are a finite resource. Moderators are a downright scare resource. When you let people spew hateful things you drive away the people you want in the community and are left with a toxic cesspool that no one wants to visit. Your moderators will burn out and leave as well. That's a very reliable way for your space to die. Then there's the fact that it takes far more energy to refute bullshit than to spew it, and this asymmetry means that "just let them speak" means the toxic liars win.
- 8mo ago

cykros 8mo ago

"Market demand." If I've got a profile on let's say, mastodon.social, and I have a following, and people I follow across other servers, and then mastodon.social decides that due to a few people over on outrageousposts.social, I can no longer access their content, nor they mine, I am left with exactly two choices: write that portion of my network off as a complete loss, or create a completely new profile on a new instance, and build up a new network from scratch. That anyone puts up with this state of affairs suggests to me that people just don't know Nostr solved this problem 3 years ago. I get that compared to Facebook, Twitter, etc, Mastodon does seem like an improvement even with this state of affairs -- after all, you at least CAN just create a new profile rather than getting booted off of the network entirely. It was handy for a few years. But a better alternative has been created, and I for one won't be looking back.

incomingpain 8mo ago

[dead]