• muddi [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Freedom of speech is about not being censored by the government, not private citizens hosting a platform for a spectrum of opinions.

    Compare it to something like freedom of religion: should private citizens engage in a spectrum of religious rituals, including violent rituals of extreme cults?

    The issue isn’t how enthusiastic individual private citizens are about the freedoms granted to them from the government. Someone may truly enjoy yelling “fire” in public buildings, but the effect on the public is what causes concern.

    Should you censor a person for this? That’s another debate, but I’m just explaining where the concern, assuming you have concern, should be placed.

    • thefatone@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      True, there are limits to freedom of speech. But aren’t you disturbed by the control that people in society are exerting on the narratives that we are allowed to question? With or without government involvement. I’m talking about big techmedia here, and the power they have to set the narrative entirely with or without the government involved. I mean the tools that they put into play to stop right wing misinformation (not saying most of it isn’t misinformation) can be just flipped over on the left when the left starts threatening institutions down the road.

      • muddi [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then the left should continue to build decentralized alternatives. Dual power is the only practical solution for when institutions are captured by reactionaries to suppress the left.

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          this has to include more than platforms for people to talk on - in a moment of crisis, no one involved is going to be posting on lemmy or mastodon, except to give public reports. real resilient communications infrastructure needs to be point to point, encrypted, and it must avoid normal internet infrastructure. if it touches a corporate router, it can and will be suppressed by the state in the name of crushing the left.

          moreover, dual power must include mutual aid and mutual defense if it’s to actually live up to the name. platforms to talk online with comrades are nice and all but it doesn’t on it’s own build any kind of base of power.

          • muddi [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolutely true, social media presence is hardly the material conditions necessary for a revolution. The structures to be replaced run deeper than which website you use

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Freedom of speech is about not being censored by the government, not private citizens hosting a platform for a spectrum of opinions.

      The government can deny someone freedom of speech, but the government isn’t the only thing that can deny someone freedom of speech.