From 3e9bf5cc04dff099b575823601348df2a33ce1b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christopher Lemmer Webber Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:42:37 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Add a section on freedom of speech and the freedom to filter --- README.org | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.org b/README.org index 0aaa662..8537ae3 100644 --- a/README.org +++ b/README.org @@ -210,6 +210,47 @@ But how can we get from here to there? ** Freedom of speech also means freedom to filter +As an intermediate step, we should throw out a source of confusion: +what is "freedom of speech"? +Does it mean that we have to listen to hate speech? + +We can start by saying that freedom of speech and the freedom of +assembly are critical tools. +Indeed, these are some of the few tools we have against totalitarian +authorities, of which the world is increasingly threatened by. + +Nonetheless, we are under severe threat from [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism][neo-fascists]]. +Neo-fascists play an interesting trick: they exercise their freedom of +speech by espousing hate speech and, when people say they don't want +to listen to them, say that this is censorship. + +Except that freedom of speech merely means that you have the freedom +to /exercise/ your speech, somewhere. +It does not mean that everyone has to listen to you. +You also have the right to call someone an asshole, or stop listening +to them. +There is no requirement to read every spam that crosses your email +inbox to preserve freedom of speech; neither is there to listen to +someone who is being an asshole. +The freedom to filter is the complement to freedom of speech. +This applies to both individuals and to communities. + +Indeed, neo-fascists are playing a trick: they are not really +interested in freedom of speech at all. +They are interested in freedom of /their/ speech, up until the point +where they can gain enough power to prevent others from saying things +they don't like. +This is easily demonstrated; see how many people on the internet are +willing to threaten women and minorities who exercise the smallest +amount of autonomy, yet the moment that someone calls them out on +their /own/ bullshit, they cry censorship. +Don't confuse an argument for "freeze peach" for an argument for +"free speech". + +Still, what can we do? +Perhaps we cannot prevent assholes from joining the wider social +network... but maybe we can develop a system where we don't have to +hear them. ** Did we borrow the wrong assumptions? @@ -235,8 +276,8 @@ will generate the most advertising revenue. One egregious example of this is the prominence of the "follower count" in contemporary social networks, particularly Twitter. -When visiting another user's profile, even someone who is aware of and -dislikes its effect will have trouble not comparing follower counts +When visiting another user's profile, even someone who is aware of andd +islikes its effect will have trouble not comparing follower counts and mentally using this as a value judgement, either about the other person or about themselves. Users are subconsciously tricked into playing a popularity contest,