Comment on Why is programming.dev federated with exploding heads?
parpol@programming.dev 9 months agoFalse information is a global problem, but arguing against free speech absolutism sounds more dangerous to me.
I hear people say free speech absolutism is dangerous because it can lead to loud extremist voices overwhelm the more “moderate” ones, often referencing Nazi Germany and the success of their propaganda. However, any limiting of free speech can lead to censorship of voices falsely labeled extreme and fake. The entity regulating speech would need to be absolutely immune to corruption, which just isn’t possible.
Extremists voices often reach further because of how radical they are, but sometimes the radical ideas are the right ones, even if at the moment the general public disagree with them. After all, we have no idea of knowing that what we really hear is the general public opinion or bots deployed by a currently dominant entity, and the general public is not always correct. For example, in certain countries the general public still believe homosexuality is sinful and should be banned, which is horrible. In these places we need radical voices. If there is a regulatory system of speech, it could be skewing and mislabeling what is considered public opinion, and what is considered extreme views.
My views do not align with the right, but I am a strong advocate for free speech and privacy, especially on the internet. Free speech and privacy must be absolute, or it isn’t free speech or privacy.
Shikadi@beehaw.org 9 months ago
I’m a very strong supporter of free speech. But free speech absolutism where you go out of your way to make all voices heard is not what free speech is about. It’s about the government not interfering. Just like people have a right to a gun, but Walmart has the right to kick you out for bringing one, rammy.site users have the right to say whatever they want, and other instances have the right to defederate.
If a teacher goes against the curriculum and teaches children that black people are all out to get them, I sure as hell hope the school would step in and stop or remove them.
That’s not a violation of free speech, but in your opinion above it would be.
parpol@programming.dev 9 months ago
Honestly, yeah I think it would be in my opinion.
I would argue that an instance is like a governing body for many communities, and defederation is censoring people of other nations. “If you don’t like it, you can leave” is not as simple anymore because you cannot just migrate to a different instance (at least not fully)
Guns at Walmart is different, because you can’t just block a gun on a personal level, but on Lemmy you can block communities on a user level. (Blocking entire instances on a user level would be even better ). And guns pose a physical threat, while radical instances are more or less opinions people don’t agree with.
If a teacher has radical ideas, as long as he has overwhelming evidence, he should be allowed in my opinion. " Black people are out to get you" is very hard to agree with, but “gays shouldn’t be hanged” in a country like Iran isn’t.
Admins of course have a right to do whatever they want with their instance, and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed, but I personally don’t agree with it and I’m voicing my opinion against it.
I have some instances in the fediverse that come to mind that I personally wouldn’t want to be defederated from but know that many others do. For example the mastodon instance pawoo where my favorite artists reside.
Shikadi@beehaw.org 9 months ago
I strongly disagree with you and think you’re wrong. Especially that you would allow teachers to teach children that black people are out to get you, all to protect some made up ideal that was never intended when the first amendment was added.
parpol@programming.dev 9 months ago
If we didn’t allow for radical ideas to be discussed, we would still be in the dark ages, and criticizing the existence of God would be punishable by death.
I’m not American and the intention of the amendment doesn’t matter. Free Speech is a human right no matter what country or what definition they have. My definition is that it is absolute. Free speech is especially important when dealing with radical ideas. Free speech as long as it is moderate is nothing but a façade, propaganda to keep the population under control.
Let’s make up a scenario where it turns out there are vampires among us, and they’re all the same minority. Let’s say I have extensive research with DNA proof that any descendant from minority X is a vampire, and I’m trying to publish my research, but no publisher is willing to take me seriously. I try to speak in front of people, but I’m labeled a racist, and I’m banned from making public speeches or enter any university. I have the evidence, but cannot show it because people are so sure that it is absolutely impossible that there are vampires among us. In this scenario, I am a radical extremist, and by your argument, it is right for me to not have a voice.