Follow

Poor freedom of speech. Its meaning has taken such a drubbing in the last few years.

I mean, originally, it was just "the government can't tell you what you can and can't say".

Then someone decided it meant "what you say should never have any consequences".

Then someone decided that it meant "nobody can deny you a soapbox".

Then someone decided that it meant "nobody can refuse to listen to you."

Now apparently it means "every program that could possibly access my soapbox MUST do so."

@noelle Yes, I agree. There will be a healthy competition coming soon in the Fediverse over this issue.

gun violence 

@noelle I just had the horrifying realization that if the right to bear arms followed the same slope it would result in people demanding that other people are not allowed to resist being shot by them.

gun violence 

@InspectorCaracal *cough Stand Your Ground cough*

re: gun violence 

@noelle yeah I was thinking about that as soon as I said it ._.

gun violence 

@InspectorCaracal
@noelle
It kinda did, in a way. Certainly in some states. Originally it was only that a well planned militia could bear arms, and only with regards to the government getting too big for its boots. Nowhere in that does it mention guns or using guns to protect your property. They are now so readily available that an untrained child could obtain one. And yet its that same ammendment used to justify it.

@noelle turns out doing a poor job of teaching civics and American history has consequences. 😖

this is half a "well-technicality" level of detail-quibble but also it's a meaningful difference darnit 

@noelle I mean "government" yes, but like in a way that includes anyone constructing and managing public areas, because e.g. Facebook keeping Facebook-critical news article from circulating is DEFINITELY a freedom of speech issue,
and,
like,
I know you didn't mean it wasn't but things phrasing it like this so often elide that and cause it to be ignored/downplayed and it's not relevant HERE so it's not like you're WRONG or anything but it's FRUSTRATING
(sorry)

this is half a "well-technicality" level of detail-quibble but also it's a meaningful difference darnit 

@gaditb @usdcollector I will be even more pedantic and point out that when the concept of freedom of speech was originally (note the wording) conceived in Europe, the government WAS the central authority; the only higher authority was the Pope, who effectively was the government anyway. If we're gonna be persnickety, let's be persnickety.

this is half a "well-technicality" level of detail-quibble but also it's a meaningful difference darnit 

@gaditb @usdcollector The real answer: yes, of course, but I had 6 characters left.

this is half a "well-technicality" level of detail-quibble but also it's a meaningful difference darnit 

@noelle @gaditb

should have used emoji, they always help

this is half a "well-technicality" level of detail-quibble but also it's a meaningful difference darnit 

@gaditb @noelle

> Facebook keeping Facebook-critical news article from circulating is DEFINITELY a freedom of speech issue,

Only if you hold that Facebook is an essential public utility, in which case it should probably be socialized or broken up.

But we’re literally conversing on an _alternative_ to Facebook, so I’m not sure that claim holds true.

@noelle
The first amendment of the United States Constitution states that the government cannot tell you what you can and can't say. However, the general concept of freedom of speech extends beyond any individual government and is rather about the extent to which a central authority or gatekeeper can be the arbiter of who gets to speak.

@noelle Didn't you hear? Freedom of speech now means corporations must provide everybody with a free soapbox no matter what they do with it.

@noelle This is why Stallman was so ahead of his time - partly because he separated out "code" from "speech", and partly because he knew the legal side was equally important. This is a must-read: linuxreviews.org/Free_Software

@noelle Yes, there's a distinction between "who can make changes in theory" vs "who can actually make changes", but the barrier is different. Stallman et al assume that learning is the barrier, not access to the raw material (source code).

It's all a matter of different levels of platform fighting each other: Speech, tool for speech, code for tool for speech, skills for code for tool for speech...

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Elekk: Gameing and Other Delightful Pursuits

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!