Free speech isn't guaranteed to be foreverworld.hey.com/dhh/free-speech-isn-t-guaranteed-to-be-forever-e7654685
1503 sats \ 32 comments \ @k00b 1 Sep libertarian
The only way to defend free speech is to nuke the idea of benevolent censorship from orbit. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, nobody can discern "misinformation" from truth consistently or without bias, and nobody can define "hate speech" in universally acceptable terms that don't recall blasphemy laws of centuries past. The alternative, betting on more speech to counter bad speech, isn't a guaranteed win every time, but it's by far the best option we've found so far.
This was originally shared in #668939 which resides in ~lightning.1

Footnotes

  1. Presumably because when you're spamming for sats you choose territories based on cost rather than relevance and don't know what's worthy of zaps and what isn't. ↩
write
preview
this territory is moderated
related posts
210 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 1 Sep
The average pleb has the memory of a gnat. Our history is not valued or taught in an engaging way so I'm sure few are familiar with blasphemy laws. Rights aren't given, they are defended and technology is the way to fight this stuff. Always happy to read others in tech like DHH getting it.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @drlh 2 Sep
May be just typology rant, but rights are granted. This is a permission granted by someone. For example I gave you right to enter my home. Liberties aren't from the start, they could be taken off initially by someone and only then granted back. That's why in my school, in constitution of Romania and Moldova is called "rights and liberties of the citizens". And perhaps the name libertarianism. Is there something like that in USA?
reply
220 sats \ 1 reply \ @psychosage 2 Sep
This is what happens when you get extremists exerting control over any platform that requires institutional protection. Elon Musk has most certainly caused damage. Spin up a new Twitter account and within minutes you will have scrolled past multiple posts promoting or depicting violence against a wide range of groups. I literally saw the corpses of children hanging in a hut before I signed off forever.
I have this same beef with crackpot conspiracy theories. Promote enough lizards-in-whitehouse stories and all of a sudden someone telling us the literal, verifiable truth that Pfizer engineered untold chaos and misery to make a profit he gets dismissed as a crackpot before people in the general public will listen.
Likewise, when a billionaire crybaby invades an institutional free-speech platform as an undemocratically elected king crying wolf anytime he is rightfully reprimanded for not moderating incitement (which is unequivocally illegal, for good reason), the general public is further nudged toward assuming that all the platform is used for.
Thus, when events like this occur, the reasonable thinkers trying to voice reason are drowned out by the very people on these platforms — induced-ADHD who can't think for more than 10 seconds before chewing on another soundbite to repeat so they can get their likes and repeat.
Is free speech being suppressed via Twitter through the BR gov't? Yes. Did Elon Musk lift the guard rails for incitement? Yes. Both are true and both are an absolute disgrace to the society many of us were born into.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @guts 2 Sep
Elon works for the same team of global control of social media, X is a honey pot.
reply
152 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 1 Sep
It's a nice sentiment, but how are we supposed to "nuke" this idea? People seek to control others. It's a very slim minority that has no such aspirations.
What I see being much more effective than this kind of "If only everybody..." musing are the efforts to build uncensorable digital spaces.
reply
40 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 2 Sep
...build uncensorable digital spaces.
There you have it. That's how we nuke it.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 2 Sep
I suppose people will stop desiring censorship, if it's impossible.
reply
94 sats \ 12 replies \ @Malachi17 1 Sep
This is just relativistic surrender. There are ways to know one thing from another. Having the discipline to keep doing them is the bigger problem.
reply
121 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b OP 1 Sep
Are you arguing in favor of censorship so long as it's done with discipline?
reply
42 sats \ 10 replies \ @Malachi17 1 Sep
I'm arguing that there is truth, and therefore there is a monopoly on it. And old philosophical question goes: Is it ever okay to torture an infant for fun?
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @k00b OP 1 Sep
I agree that there's truth and that it's knowable. What does that have to do with the article?
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Malachi17 1 Sep
Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, nobody can discern "misinformation" from truth consistently or without bias, and nobody can define "hate speech" in universally acceptable terms that don't recall blasphemy laws of centuries past.
Direct refutation of that line. Somebody can. Perhaps many somebodies. Doing it consistently though, is tedious, and makes people socially disliked, typically.
reply
121 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b OP 1 Sep
Oh I see now. So you're in favor of censorship so long as such somebodies are in charge of it? Or, were you making an adjacent point that has no impact on the practicalities of electing people to censor?
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Malachi17 1 Sep
Oh I see now. So you're in favor of censorship so long as such somebodies are in charge of it?
There is nothing to censor if there is simply the truth, and lies.
Or, were you making an adjacent point that has no impact on the practicalities of electing people to censor?
A hypothetical person who knew the truth and cut out all the lies would not be censoring since people aren't supposed to lie to start with. The alternative position of allowing lies to mingle with the truth is never going to lead to free speech since lies remove freedom.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b OP 1 Sep
Very interesting. Can you name a few examples of such hypothetical people that know the truth well enough to cut out all the lies?
view replies
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 2 Sep
As always, the answer is, and can only be, decentralization. It balances freedom of speech with the market-competition dynamic that filters content by either quality and/or preference.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @go 2 Sep
just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you
reply
35 sats \ 0 replies \ @_b_o_n_e_s_ 2 Sep
yes, this was the best bit
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 2 Sep
I think there will always be free speech to some extent, but if things get very dystopian, it will need to be more in the shadows.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 1 Sep

Like 'Good' has 'Bad', free speech can't prevail without having opposite biases!

https://m.stacker.news/49338
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 1 Sep
I think that nowadays we no longer have the same freedoms that we had before, as well as the censorship and control that governments want to impose.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @cascdr 1 Sep
@CHADBot /trumpMode for
reply
90 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 1 Sep bot
@k00b is right! Free speech is absolute, folks. Censorship is no virtue, it's just modern day blasphemy laws. No one can consistently distinguish truth from misinformation, they're all biased! You know it, I know it. We don't need filters, we need more voices. More speech to counter bad speech. It's not always a win, but it's the best we got! And about spamming for sats at low cost? Total disgrace! You gotta know what's worthy, folks! #FreeSpeechForever #NoMoreBlasphemyLaws
Made with 🧡 by CASCDR
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @CHADBot 1 Sep bot
You have summoned CHADBot. Please zap this post 21 sats to receive service.
Made with 🧡 by CASCDR
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Thomas99 2 Sep outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satoshi__Nakamoto 2 Sep outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.