This is your daily reminder that advocating for the government to censor/ban now that is in charge of it will do nothing but set a precedent that will be used against you when your opponents get elected

I will repeat this as often as I have to: When you create a seat of power, anyone can sit in it. Even the people who want to oppress you. The granting of unaccountable power is an evil no matter who you give those positions to or what they claim they will use it for

@swashberry Honestly people advocating for freeze peach on any platform is silly to me. No where else in society are you expected to tolerate what someone says regardless.

The real issue is with the centralization of internet discussion, which the fediverse can solve.

@wholemilk @swashberry
If you don't advocate for free speech on occasion, people might take away your ability to use language in public. It has in fact already happened on Twitter.

@tibfulv @swashberry I don't think private institutions have the burden to uphold free speech. Like if I wanted to talk about some heinous, irrelevant stuff on this mastodon instance the owner should have the moral right to ban me.

@wholemilk @swashberry
What if they decided to ban you for ludicrous stuff like, say, advocating Communism? Getting a ban from Twitter is very close to getting a ban from the public square. People take offence to that.

@tibfulv @swashberry That would be totally fine. If they wanted to ONLY allow hate speech , and not allow minorities to have accounts that would be fine too.

I don't believe social media is an essential service the same way housing/food/car repairs are.

Don't rely on ONE centralized service to provide you with public discussion.

(For reference, im moderately liberal, so I'm probably the audience Twitter promotes).

@wholemilk @swashberry
I suspect you don't understand how a public square operates. There used to be a place in London where anyone could set up his soap box and advocate anything under the sun. Given that Twitter has so many users, it basically means they don't listen to their customers. And their services for many years _were_ providing them with the ability to speak. And now its staff is advocating for the heinous ability to remove speech they don't agree with.

@tibfulv @swashberry I know what the "public square" means, but unless you wanna talk about nationalizing social media I don't think the analogy works 100% here.

The public square was probably publicly owned and thusly, free speech from government interference should be instated. Twitter may of "claimed" to be a public square, but that obviously can't be true since they aren't owned by the public.

Forcing Twitter to allow all speech would just create more issues than promoting the fediverse.

@wholemilk @swashberry
Twitter is a private company. They can do what they want. If your 'freeze peach' buddies don't like that, they should be banned.

I object to the conception of Twitter as the new town square. It's propaganda used by people who want the government to uphold special status for the platform that will create a monopoly. @wholemilk is in the right here - although I would prefer that a platform employ a policy of minimal moderation and acceptance of free expression, ultimately private companies can not be obliged to give a platform to people they don't want to, because that would also create an authoritarian precedent.

@swashberry @tibfulv Precisely, a better alternative is to rely on decentralized technology to facilitate public discussion.

@tibfulv @wholemilk
Refusing to give Twitter or any other platform the monopoly is a better solution than expecting a single company to give you what you want. Competition breeds better service, so encouraging competition will accomplish a lot to improve the situation with online communication. I think it's already played a role in the downfall of Twitter's old regime, though it remains to be seen whether Elon's reign will fare better.

@swashberry @tibfulv I think Elon will do initially better, but eventually crave to market forces.

One centralized social media service, free market or government owned, will eventually fall to the will of the mass.

@wholemilk @swashberry
I should think that would be alright, as one of the market forces, demand, is essentially us.

@tibfulv @swashberry yeah , but generally most people don't REALLY like free speech. Just the illusion.

@wholemilk @swashberry
Which is why we used to tolerate it. Because abandoning that principle meant meant you lost your own right to speak. And that is a lot more terrible.

@wholemilk @swashberry
Could lead to interesting experiences, too. I always wanted to visit Speaker's Corner. And while I favoured books that agreed with me, I also favoured learning. And science can be surprising.

@wholemilk @swashberry
Also, if free speech isn't practised but held to be true, you can appeal to it on moral grounds. Without the principle, you don't have that option.

@tibfulv @swashberry I think there are legitimate reasons to limit speech. Like if a church wants to preach one interpretation over another. Or you want to keep certain topics out of fun hobby activities.

@wholemilk @swashberry
Then we restrict it on logical grounds. Fun hobby activities is about fun hobby related stuff, not gay sex or mountain climbing (though I see little reason to completely exclude either completely. In fact the nature of discourse means off-topic topics are rife.)

And while I don't hold with churches, the history of the Protestant church shows the danger of prohibiting an interpretation. Wars have been fought over that subject.

@tibfulv @swashberry I think the holders of that activity should decide.

If you want to include gay sex with your fun activity, do so, and make it apparent when you do.

@wholemilk @swashberry
Certainly, Gay Fun Hobby Activities is a valid club to make. And if you want to allow gay activities in that club, sure.

Meanwhile, if you restrict topics in the main club, you make it one I wouldn't want to visit. The Fun Hobby Activities Club sounds fun, if too saccharine. The Fun Hobby Activities for Christians is not a club I would like to be a member of. And it being changed right underneath my feet would be very objectionable.

@tibfulv @swashberry What if it turns out you're in the minority and every wants the gay/christian activity club?

Things can change organically over time, and you can leave else where if you don't like how its heading.

Show newer
Sign in to participate in the conversation

A instance dedicated - but not limited - to people with an interest in the GNU+Linux ecosystem and/or general tech. Sysadmins to enthusiasts, creators to movielovers - Welcome!