reclaimthenet.org
9 votes grimlok — 9 votes, 9 commentsSource

I’m surprised this isn’t being talked about here. There is a massive push in the USA right now to shut down certain people’s speech by big tech and government. They are using the event at the capitol in Washington D.C. to justify it. Though I don’t support calls to violence, I do support free speech.

I have no issues with Parlor getting bad press or severe push back. They were unwilling or unable to deal with their problems. I see them as collaborators.

I have similar thoughts about the Twit… Fbok… or Instaguh… censoring within their gardens. Except in their case, it’s more like advertising. Yay, they did such a great thing, now come flock back to the megacorps.

In terms of free speech… even though it’s a slippery slope, I admit I worry about the future if the chuds start using the fediverse (or irc, matrix, anything that competes with one of the big co.). At least with email, folks know about it and mostly understand it. But I worry that if something like Wednesday had happened after some folks used the fediverse, the public would scapegoat the entire technology and not just an instance.

The same thing happens over and over, this is not the first time and will not be the last. What was it the last time? Gab or voat? As always, twitter is a private corporation they can choose who they want or don’t. Do you allow everyone to talk in your house or do you kick them out? A more interesting question is: is twitter a public space? How many registered accounts define a public space vs not a public space? Who rules over there to decide who can have an account or not?

While they are pushing to control corporate social media platforms, free, decentralized and federated platforms are emerging. We must remember that most corporations are private property by default. Social media platforms owned by corporations may be called public spaces or not, depending on how the users are abused. There is always a solution to overcome or enforce censorship, and always will be. The ultimate frontier for these matters to solve, when no other solution is viable is to enforce or overcome by violence.

Such a primitive society we live in nowadays.

Be cautious when calling for violence. Violence is (almost) never justified. You surely are not calling for violence against social media?

Look I am not calling for violence (don’t misinterpret my comment), I don’t even have the power nor the mindset to do that, violence is for the incompetent with power or need to control.

I am pointing out the corporations view here: “There is always a solution to overcome or enforce censorship, and always will be.”
In this case real hackers are building distributed systems to empower decentralization of social media interactions and overcome censorship; while corporations tend to control or centralize with many ways of violence, in this case censorship.

Another politics-corporate view: “The ultimate frontier for these matters to solve, when no other solution is viable is to enforce or overcome by violence.”
Here I am pointing out that eventually the most incompetent will try to enforce by violence.

Violence is always perpetrated by the ethically incompetent with the need to control. I personally never consider violence, and I always exclude the “almost”.

Meh. When your “free speech” is lies and lies, intolerance, incitement, and bullshit, the only fight I’m willing to pick is with those resisting deplatforming. The Arnold says it best!

ahem… pardon me but user bans have existed for as long as the Internet has. Why is this special or different? IRC is 30 years old, older than WWW, and has a kick+ban command build in. Ever heard of bl{a,o}cklists?

This is not suppression of free speech it’s my right to ignore listening at /insert-person-here/ bullshit.

I think my problem with it all is that this treatment isn’t consistent across the board. Some groups are being completely removed and ‘deplatformed’ but other just as violent, if not more violent groups are allowed to continue on. It’s ok to be violent if twitter, facebook, etc. agrees with your ideology. It’s fine other platforms are being built, but that doesn’t help public discourse if we segregate ourselves and just become echo chambers.

You have a point. I guess the problem is centralization of communication. If FAANGs are allowed to create monopolies and walled gardens, then they should obey special rules that do not come down to how the CEO feels like in the morning. Well people should be on mastodon then, or adopt a decentralized communication system where they can follow whatever they want and say whatever they want. What happens next is cloud providers disabling entire websites, and ISPs blocking connections. If something is really bad (as in this case) a court order can also block a website. The only solution is anonymity. Well not anonymity of the person but anonymity of the place where the content is published.