CENSORSHIP

Language is a very powerful tool because it shapes the way we think. The words we choose to use impact how we think, feel, and reason about the world around us. Today I would like to address the word censorship because it is a very hot topic on steemit.

The first problem we always face is different and ambiguous definitions for censorship. Unfortunately, it isn’t always practical to define our terms in every debate and therefore drama queens toss the term “censorship” around far too easily. I would go so far as to say that the censorship card is played about as often and illegitimately as the race card. Often those who play the race card are more racist and oppressive than those they slander, the same principle applies to those who play the censorship card.

Censorship requires Aggression

The defining characteristic of a free society is the absence of initiation of violence. This includes the credible threat of violence, fraud, theft, etc. Without the threat of aggression people can freely say whatever they want, whenever they want without fear that their person or property will be harmed. A critical distinction of a free society is that you cannot express yourself in ways that violate the property rights of others.

Graffiti is Aggression and violation of Property Rights

Graffiti is defined as writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place. In a free society the Graffiti artist would be tracked down and expected to pay restitution to the property owner. No rational individual would argue that the artist has been censored by the property owner or that the property owner is the one initiating aggression against the artist.

Property Owner defines Art vs Graffiti

There are places where graffiti-style art is acceptable and is actually encouraged. In this case no aggression has occurred and therefore the action is legitimate.

Spam, Porn, Harassment, and Fraudulent posts are Digital Graffiti

When it comes to websites like Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit, and Steemit we have digital property owned by individuals providing a free and voluntary service to society. It is not possible for these organizations to censor user content because they are not using violence, theft, etc.

The only true censorship is when government agents approach these companies and demand content be removed under threat of force or violence. Provided these companies are not under any kind of threat, there can be no censorship.

When someone demands that YouTube share ad revenue they are taking the role of the Graffiti artist that demands property owners not repaint over their artwork.

Some people may consider the Graffiti artwork worth thousands of dollars, but this doesn’t change the moral character of the vandalism. Likewise, some people may feel their humor, sarcasm, teasing, crude language, or vulgar posts to be artwork and demand that other users see it and/or up vote it for payment.

Graffiti Hurts Community Value

We all love the idea that Free Speech adds value to the speaker, but our selfish desires to be heard come at the expense of the listeners. Few people desire to move into a neighborhood where there is unfettered graffiti and complete disrespect for property rights. Likewise, few people want to join an online community where there are no standards of mutual respect.

A Perception Problem

We have a very real problem in society today. The problem is that people feel entitled to things that are not theirs. Whether it is health care, google ranking, reputation, or right for gay couples to be served by particular vendors who oppose gay marriage. These entitlements can only be delivered by initiating force and violence against innocent people.

If a particular vendor (YouTube, Facebook, Google, or your Local Florist) will not serve you, then you must take your business elsewhere. Vendors who lose a significant amount of business will voluntarily reconsider their policies.

But they have a monopoly!

To the extent that a business gains the vast majority of the market share without relying on government regulations to shield them from competition, the monopoly is deserved and was earned by providing a quality product that others were unable to compete with.

There are no laws forcing everyone to use Google, YouTube, Reddit, or Facebook. There are no regulations preventing competitors from starting up and competing. Complaining about their unwillingness to serve you is like a local mall refusing to allow certain tenants. It will certainly make business more challenging for those tenants, but the prospective tenants are not entitled to a prime high-traffic spot in the mall.

Flagging Posts based upon Differing Opinions

Some people have been complaining about users who down-vote posts they disagree with. The basis of the idea is that all posts are entitled to funding from those who support the ideas. This stance is in direct opposition to the vested interests of every stakeholder.

What should happen when one stakeholder wishes to fund a cause abhorrent to another stakeholder of equal size? The two opinions are canceled out and the remaining stakeholders get to decide.

Incentive to be Tolerant and Inclusive

All users, particularly whales, have financial incentive to be tolerant and inclusive. This grows the overall network effect and makes everyone the most money possible. To the extent any community adopts a culture of intolerance that overly restricts the range of acceptable opinion it will push people away. New communities will form to serve the needs of those who are rejected and the free market competition for mindshare will continue.

Conclusion

If Steem remains a libertarian / anarchist enclave then it will fail to attract a broader audience and that in turn will mean that ordinary people will not get involved with cryptocurrency. Likewise, if Steemit fails to curtail abusive, threatening, and toxic individuals it will also drive away the broader audience leaving only those with skin thick enough to take the abuse of trolls.

I want Steem be a healthy, vibrant community with engaging discussions from people with all points of view. Unfortunately (and fortunately?), I am only one of many users who have a say in what kind of content gets voted on. Each and every one of us contributes to the culture and we will all succeed or fail based upon how we act.

Lets stop throwing the term “censorship” around here on Steemit unless it is explicitly referring to the threat of violence. It is out of place and conjures up inappropriate negative reactions similar to playing the race card. Instead, lets focus on the rights of all voters to express their opinion for or against any post. If you disagree with how someone is voting, then focus your argument on how something adds or removes value to the community rather than whether someone is committing the “vile” sin of non-censorship by utilizing their legitimate voting rights.

Steemit is a free and voluntary platform built on the basis of free association; censorship is impossible in such an environment even if the community or steemit.com chooses to minimize the visibility of some content or block it all together.

The blockchain is open, your content is logged and recorded for all time. Anyone who wants to see your content or offer a competing service to steemit.com is free to curate and display what they like.

P.S. On Definitions

We live in a world where common words are generally used in ways that are in direct contradiction of their meaning. The unfortunate reality dramatically lowers the quality of public discourse because it allows people to talk past each other. Activists leverage the emotional response to the word censorship to provoke people into violating the property rights of others. It may well be that censorship is taking on a broader meaning that would also encompass the no coerced behavior of Google, Facebook, etc. The problem with the broader meaning is that the word censorship is no longer useful for accurately defining moral/immoral behavior. Under the broader definition, accusing someone of censorship is as meaningless as accusing them of filtering spam emails. How dare they censor spam artists!