"Censorship resistance" is crock

in notag •  3 months ago

It's a wonderful idea. Free speech for all. People can spew whatever hateful, ludicrous, odious bullshit they wish, and everyone will critically dissect, analyze and ridicule if necessary; whilst championing engaging, entertaining, and wise content.

Oh, except, no one cares. This is not how human society works. People just want a pleasant place to hang out, discuss things with like minded people, and move on. A place which dispenses with all nonsense that heavily compromises the social experience. That's what the vast majority of the social media audience wants.

This is, of course, a response to Alex Jones being banned off multiple social networks. Twitter basically changed its hate speech policies to keep Alex Jones on board (being the only major social network to do so), triggering an overwhelmingly negative reaction. Most people want abhorrent trash like that off the platforms they use.

I'll reiterate what I've been saying for years - if Steem were to ever become a mainstream force, it'll have to be on the back of curated and moderated SMTs. No one wants a lawless shitshow of a platform*.

Wake up, "censorship-resistant", "unmoderated", "uncurated" social/publishing platforms are massive drawbacks that most normal, sensible people would stay far away from. (Of course, on the flipside, an overmoderated platform will lose audience just as fast. There's a balance to be found.)

*Except the scammers, criminals, hatemongers, and delusional anarchists. Fortunately, there can be niche SMTs which cater to just that audience, as Steem does now.

Bonus -

Before you're offended, please note I'm merely asking questions of everyone who has decided Steem is awesome. Staying grounded will make for a better Steem.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Wake up, "censorship-resistant", "unmoderated", "uncurated" social/publishing platforms are massive drawbacks that most normal, sensible people would stay far away from.

This isn't even a thing anymore. Steemit is a way for people to make money, and that's it.

All that heroic idealism that was present in 2016 is but a memory now.

Also, "censorship" is probably the wrong term. Like any newspaper or TV channel, social media platforms have the full right to chose which contents they want to publish. It's not like the state would crack down Alex Jones. It's privatly owned media - they are not obliged to be balanced or universally open for everything.

·

Of course. I was quoting what many see as Steem's great feature, and arguing that it might be its greatest drawback.

·
·

I know, and I agree.

Well. Alex Jones is a nutcase. And fuck him, but it's harrowing that the internet tech giants can simply agree to institute Damnatio Memoriae at will. What's worse is that so many see this as an attack by 'the Left' on 'the Right'. Again, displaying a lack of political intellect in the assumption that Google or Youtube are in anyway somehow 'Left'.

It speaks to the consequences of open information. All ideas are freely consumable without any criticism or debate. Ideas are reduced to information without any mechanism of society engaging with them and growing or moving forward. The internet atomizes, continuing the post-modern crisis of identity, continuing the neoliberal strategy of isolation and containment.

That Vitalik quote is bullshit. Try and make a living off 'social capital' and not real capital. Influence can't pay the power bill.

As Harlen Ellison says, "cross my palms with silver".

Pretty much everything everywhere is some kind of echochamber. If I stand up and declare that I hate the color blue, I'm usually doing so because I'm looking for others to say "me too!" I'm looking for an echochamber... most of us are.

Now, I'm totally cool with you having YOUR echochamber, as long as I can have mine.

Most people and organizations aren't. They wan't their perception of dissent silenced or muffled.

And in general, you're absolutely right: Nobody wants a lawless shitshow. The freedom hawkers have a lovely ideology, but the pink elephant in their "room" is that only 10% of the population (on a good day) has the intelligence and mindfulness to actively self-monitor and behave responsibly.

IMO censorship is when the powers that be (government, website, publishing platform ..etc) feels that people are so gullible that they can't filter their own content to the point that they have to step in because "They know better".

This is the state of mass media, this is the state of big social media platforms. they think I'm so stupid that I can't tune things out myself. It's not like i have to watch all 4 hour of Alex Jones' shitshow of a talk.

Then again, in a truly free world where people do filter their own content, echo chambers are going to be a whole lot worse than what it is now.

I don't think the term "sensible" bears the same meaning it has 10 years ago. It's like we're on track to a Fahrenheit 451 world where opinions have to be homogenous and "weirdos" must to be put to death either virtual or literally. It's sad too.

The whole idea of an open blockchain technology is that it is "censorship-resistant", Bitcoin was the first, Steem is now one of them. But I do agree that the same cannot (and must not) be said about Steemit.com. Steemit.com is a website and a content platform owned by Steemit.inc, if you want to use their platform you gotta put up with whatever policies they have. Or use another platform.

perhaps you're right when you say we should not peddle the "censorship-resistant" feature of Steem when introducing to the average people. I've stop doing so myself to the point where all i say is "it's like all the apps but likes equal internet money".

Steem has to be gentrified if we ever think of mass adoption. And I hope to dear god that by then Steemit.com will not be the face of the Steem Blockchain. We've got other increasingly better apps around.

·

IMO censorship is when the powers that be (government, website, publishing platform ..etc) feels that people are so gullible that they can't filter their own content to the point that they have to step in because "They know better".

Note, this is not about powers that be. This is about what people want. People don't want nutcases running riot on their platform of choice.

Maybe some people want that, and that's fine, but that'll never be the popular mainstream platform.

·
·

Hmm.. What constitute a nutcase though? Who's next after Alex Jones? I recognize that these corporations are private owned entity and have the prerogative not to follow the US First Amendment. But isn't what they're doing something very dangerous and sets a precedence to boot out whoever they want in the future?

Saying "its what the people want" may not be entirely accurate, 2.1 million poor sobs wanted Alex Jones to continuing spewing his bullshit at the time when Youtube booted him.
You may not like him, and God damn I certainly hate him. That doesn't mean content platforms can go around playing the arbiters of speech and bow down to government pressure. There's just something too fishy about what's going on. And day after day my distrust to these tech conglomerate grows.

IMO people should say whatever they want and then live with the consequences, if the listeners are stupid enough to believe whatever bullshit they hear and give money to that. That's their prerogative.

Remember that one time Wikileaks bank account got frozen and all the credit card and PayPal donations to Wikileaks just somehow went up in smoke? We can't justify that by saying banks are privately owned entity can we?

But back to the original point though, the steem blockchain is made so that even an Daesh fighter can post his propaganda on the blockchain and that will stick on there forever, as a permanent record of the vile person he is and what his people has done. No one likes what he is doing, and if the steem blokchain serves as proof to hang him, the blockchain has done good.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Hall

·
·
·

It's really very simple. There's a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Indeed, hate speech is an attack at other freedom itself. When Alex Jones is clearly inciting violence against someone, it's a breach of freedom of that someone. If you don't understand the concept of hate speech, and still disagree and say that he still has the right to do that, then we fundamentally disagree and there's nothing further to discuss.

I'd recommend checking on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights for a more mature understanding of freedom of expression, that learns from the mistakes of World Wars and other human rights catastrophes. Hate speech has cost hundreds of millions of lives and terrible suffering throughout human history. If you support of hate speech, then I don't have anything to discuss with you.

·
·
·
·

"if you support hate speech.."

Didn't I told you I fucking hate Alex Jones?

But in any case, You're right. No I can understand now how some hate speech must be silenced. Had the unfortunate experience of watching some Alex Jones snippets and I'll say again that that guy is truly revolting.

Is article 10 dry? I might take that a read. I hope I can do it. okay that was succinct. And seeing that Alex Jones has openly suggested to kill many people throughout his career, what happened is a slap on the wrist.

My original point still stands though, what constitutes "hate speech" is something that has to be vigorously and openly discussed with logic and sense. Especially in today's world where people are so tribalistic. "men are pigs and the future is female" might be (and in some parts of the States - is) seen as empowerment rather than hate speech.

The "bad people" today are still easily identified, only a nutcase would claim the innocence of Jones. But as We're moving into a world (especially in the States) where "Muzzlelims are evil" are a very much accepted opinion and "White Men are the roots of all evil" in some other parts of the States, it's an easy slippery slope. Who's next on the lynch list? Anti establishment? Anti religion? Gun nuts? Anti-guns nuts? Russian colluders? Chinese colluders? I can go on and on.

My original original point (if I had one) was that it's scary what powers the social media platform has over what information the majority takes in. What is done to Alex Jones can be easily done to Julian Assange, easily done to the late Liu Xiaobo, and perhaps has been done to alot of people whose message we didn't know because of censorship.

The steem blockchain, clunky as it is now. Is the best thing these people got as a platform to spread their message, and if that means filthy scums like Alex Jones and all the false flag hoaxers and flat earthers and sjw also gets to use the Steem Blockchain, then so be it.

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Estoy de acuerdo contigo, y pienso que si se puede lograr un equilibrio