Lately I see a lot of calls do have specific instances defederated for a particular subset of reasons:
- Don’t like their content
- Dont like their political leaning
- Dont like their free speech approach
- General feeling of being offended
- I want a safe space!
- This instance if hurting vulnerable people
I personally find each and every one of these arguments invalid. Everybody has the right to live in an echo chamber, but mandating it for everyone else is something that goes a bit too far.
Has humanity really developed into a situation where words and thoughts are more hurtful than sticks and stones?
Edit: Original context https://slrpnk.net/post/554148
Controversial topic, feel free to discuss!
Maybe the disconnect is what is meant by open market. You might actually be complaining that people have too much choice and are free to start an instance, using their own resources and choose to disassociate from some others users. If someone sets up a roadside stand and lets their friends sell things there but refuses to let a friend of a friend sell his swastika stickers there, that isn’t censorship if the guy is allowed to open his open stand. It’s just not being overly helpful. If no one wants to go to swastika guy’s stand, and everyone makes fun of him, or even discourages other people from going there, that isn’t censorship either. It’s only censorship if he isn’t allowed to set up his own stand by someone in charge of that sort of thing.
What it sounds like you want isn’t a censorship-free platform, but a platform that is restricted from not choosing to give everyone the exact same voice. That may sound more fair to you, but when it costs person A money to facilitate person B’s access, and you don’t allow person A the choice to opt out of that (basically raising the bar for person A to participate), you’re actually restricting A instead of being fair to B.
In the case where person A is actually a public resource, that’s where it becomes censorship to block person B’s access, because then it’s a position of authority determining who gets to say what. But when person A is a regular guy, hog-tying him into helping person B blather about something hateful, or even just annoying, to person A is actually infringing on rights instead of promoting them.
I think you nailed it. These instances can be started by anyone, for any reason, ran any way you want. Just as it is nazi guys right to be nazis on their instance, it’s everyone elses right to say no. That is not censorship, it’s freedom of speech. The owners of other instances are enacting their freedom of speech by saying “no”, and possibly even “fuck you”. To cry and piss yourself when other people don’t want to talk to you and say “wah wah you want a safe space” is pathetic. If you want a place where you can be as much as a douche you want, go start it! No one’s stopping you!
All very good points. I also want to explicitly state that freedom of speech typically ends when it’s causing harm. It sucks having to listen to Nazi propaganda but as soon as they start inciting violence or discrimination (which for them is pretty quick), they can no longer claim freedom of speech. That’s not to say we should preemptively ban communities. Just something to be aware of, so we can figure out the line where preventing direct harm is prioritized over being able to say whatever you want.
It also ends when you force me to pass along the message.
On a public forum it’s unconstitutional for the government to give a platform to one group and not another (within reason).
For a private individual, it’s not ‘anti freedom of speech’ if I refuse to let you use my copier to print your posters and expect me to go around sticking them up in my neighborhood, whether that’s hate speech or your grandma’s cookie recipe, you can’t force or guilt me into helping you publish content. You can still publish it, but if you want me to use my bandwidth or printer ink or even room on my pegboard you have too ask nicely and accept no for an answer, and you don’t get to cry ’freedom of speech’ and expect any reasonable person to accept that as an argument.