localhost_frssoft/ocappub
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.com/spritely/ocappub.git synced 2024-11-26 15:13:02 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add a section on freedom of speech and the freedom to filter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Christopher Lemmer Webber 2019-07-18 14:42:37 -04:00
parent c1eec96b2b
commit 3e9bf5cc04
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4BC025925FF8F4D3
1 changed files with 43 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

45
README.org
View File

@ -210,6 +210,47 @@ But how can we get from here to there?
** Freedom of speech also means freedom to filter ** 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? ** 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 One egregious example of this is the prominence of the "follower
count" in contemporary social networks, particularly Twitter. count" in contemporary social networks, particularly Twitter.
When visiting another user's profile, even someone who is aware of and When visiting another user's profile, even someone who is aware of andd
dislikes its effect will have trouble not comparing follower counts islikes its effect will have trouble not comparing follower counts
and mentally using this as a value judgement, either about the other and mentally using this as a value judgement, either about the other
person or about themselves. person or about themselves.
Users are subconsciously tricked into playing a popularity contest, Users are subconsciously tricked into playing a popularity contest,