Administered by:
: Indigenous Terror 
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."
@InspectorCaracal@tootplanet.space@noelle now THIS is an example of the slippery slope
@scribe@ganesha.masto.host@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: https://linuxreviews.org/Free_Software_which_Censors_and_Restricts_what_Sites_and_services_the_user_is_Allowed_To_Read_and_use_is_still_Free_Software
@scribe@ganesha.masto.host@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...