Quick thought about C.A.W.'s "Possible routes for distributed anti-abuse systems"
zykotick9 at
That's a lot of writing on, "how to censor people". I'd like to encourage those that believe in "individual justice" (this is historically what the word "justice" covered) to be cautious in considering what censorship(s) to allow in the name of "social justice". #freespeechmatters
clacke@libranet.de ❌ likes this.
Rather then any specific technical measure, I'm referring to the general idea of suppressing speech - in the name of "social justice". I understand the need for a "block" button - beyond that, I'd be wary of ANY measures aimed at limiting someone's abilities to communicate.
"If you're allowing individual communities.." I see the words "individual" meaning one, and "communities" meaning many - tied together - so "individual community A" made up of many members, decides it doesn't like what "individual community B" made up of many members, thinks or says... so they "ban" all posts from that other community. Let the echo chambers begin. I think we ALL need to start talking to one another, and start working together. #allsideshaveapoint
Have I become one of those ones who must not be named? ;)
@zykotick9@datamost.com @diane@pump.ghic.org @keverets@identi.ca @cwebber@identi.ca @jankusanagi@datamost.com Your right to free speech does not obligate me to listen or provide a platform for you. And vice versa as you are free to ignore me exercising my right to free speech :).
I'm more worried about semi-organic self verifying subgroups such as the pro-science and anti-science divide.
Hopefully a federated system will be less enabling for targeted misinformation.