💾 Archived View for leetaur.com › gemlog › entries › 2022-05-02.gmi captured on 2022-06-03 at 23:11:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I read Ainent's post, and the responses to Ainent's post, on Cosmos. I appreciate, as often is the case on Gemini, that Ainent's post, and some of the responses, are thoughtful. I don't *fully* agree with any of them, but that's just being human.
What does that mean, exactly, being a free speech "absolutist"? I think I understand what Musk, and Ainent, mean by this (of course I could be wrong). A lot of speech is censored because it is not "politically correct". Platforms perform censorship, to achieve political ends. Twitter censored the *true* story, by the New York Post, about Hunter Biden's laptop. And, yes, of course it was political. That happens. It happens on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, everywhere. This censorship is *bad*. You have doctors that have different ideas about how to combat Covid-19, or how to treat it. They are censored. Limiting information, because of political reasons, is *bad*.
But, I doubt either Musk or Ainent would defend, say, the sharing of child pornography. I very much suspect both would happily report people who share that crap with police.
But labels are labels... and when someone declares himself/herself a free speech absolutist, it is loaded with *political* meanings. Language is limited, and people use terms that are easily digestable/understandable. But language is limited, and it would take a book (or at least a very long article) to first a) define what they mean by the label, and only then b) explain why they are for or against being a member of that new label.
I don't like labels. I explained that in my post "Are You a Jacobin or a Girondin?"
Are you a Jacobin or a Girondin
I accept a few labels. I'm an American, because I was born and live in America. I am Catholic. But I don't try to apply additional labels, ex I don't define myself as a "conservative American", "liberal American", etc. Likewise, I'm Catholic. But Catholics often *subdivide* - liberal, conservative, traditionalist, progressive, charismatic, etc. People love to put themselves, and others, in boxes. I don't like it.
I'd love to avoid *all* labels, but some are necessary just for communication. On vacation, I have to describe the church I am looking for on Sunday. But overall, I won't apply a label to myself if I don't have to. That includes "free speech abolutist". This is both because a) I don't want to be "put in a box". But it is also because b) Language is in-exact, and then people try to pick things apart, apply meanings or intentions that weren't intended.
Musk has a ton of money, and in our current economic system, he has the right to buy Twitter. But I don't think it is going to help in the end, unless by "help" you mean people jumping from the broken platform. These centrally controlled platforms are broken. We need a new model. And it is already here. The model allows both *free speech* and *censorship*. That sounds weird, but let me explain.
Mastodon is a good model for me, because it is decentralized. It allows for anyone to fire up their own Mastodon instance, with whatever style he or she wants, while also allowing it to federate with other instances. Those other instances are free to either federate with your instance, or to shun it. You are free to speak, but you are not free to force other people to listen! There was a lot of noise when Eugene, creator of Mastodon, not only said "I won't federate with Gab" but also "and I won't federate with anyone that federates with Gab."
Some people were really offended by this. But I wasn't. I see that as freedom. Users of Eugene's instance are free to join other instances that Eugene blocked. And those users are also free to block anyone they don't like either.
I would love all Twitter users to abandon the platform, and go to something like Mastodon. Yes, true, the more "liberal" (there's those ugly labels again) might block "conservative" instances, and vice versa. But you also would get "feisty" instances that federate with anyone and everyone that will federate with them. And argue back and forth. So people who want an echo-chamber can have it. People who want to be exposed to opinions that challenge their views are free to do that as well.
As an example, there is a Catholic instance (Roman Catholic Social - rcsocial.net). I'm not a member of that, but I wouldn't be surprised if rcsocial blocked all the porn isntances. And rcsocial is perfectly free to do that! Some might call it censorship, but I view it as people choosing to "opt-in" to that censorship. If you want to have access to porn, you can join a different instance. Or you can belong to both! Note, I also blocked all those porn instances... that is *not* what I go on Mastodon to see. So both individuals, and instances, are free to block what they don't want to see.
I especially like Librem One's version of Mastodon, that doesn't have a public or instance timeline, so unless you follow someone, you aren't going to see them. (Yes, if someone you follow boosts someone else, you would see that, but I think my point stands).
So, while I understand what Ainent is saying (Ainent, if I'm wrong about what you are trying to say, feel free to correct me), my brain is running on a different track. Yes, shutting down voices because they are not popular with those in power (owners of social media networks, or politicians, or whomever) is bad.
But I think there is no hope in the centrally controlled model, be it Twitter, Facebook, Gab or Parler. I think the solution is the fediverse - Mastodon, Peertube, etc.