RE: Blockchains are Fundamental to Online Freedom
Ugh, this stupid alex jones shit again is so annoying. He was NOT "Silenced" or "censored". He violated the terms of a contract that he signed. It's like if you worked customer service at a call center and started calling the customers of the company you worked for devils that should be burned alive and got fired. He wasn't silenced lmfao, he got fired, plain and simple.
99% of people on the steem blockchain are taking this AJ thing to be far out of what it actually is and it's scary. We aren't talking about collusion, we aren't talking about big tech, oligarchs, civil liberties, we're talking about "censorship". It's dumb and not productive.
With that out of the way, decentralized media is far superior to centralized media. You can disagree if you want, but youtube and twitter are FAR FAR FAR more decentralized than anything we've ever had prior. Before the only media was the tv and newspapers, now anyone can say anything anywhere. Sure they can remove your posts and sometimes they do, but the decentralization of media in a centralized fashion was the first of many steps. Total decentralization (close to what we have on steem, but not entirely) is the end goal, but what will this entail?
If you've noticed, the extreme far right are in power in the american and western european zeitgeist and it's horrifying. Look at STEEM, even. A significant majority of users here are far right radicals and far right "libertarian" radicals that are just as crazy as AJ or worse.
Total decentralization is a scary prospect when a majority of the population are out of control radicals. It's a cool experiment, but do think it will fail at the current rate. STEEM is 90% far right crazy, 5% "libertarian centrist" and like 5% actually intelligent people who understand how the world works, and it's a scary ratio combined with the fact that money rules the platform and it breeds the same issues that raw capitalism has but entirely unchecked. Raw capitalism is a failing concept and unless regulated will end in disaster. Just like America is currently going through.
The point is, we NEED regulated and moderated environments just as much as we need decentralized and visceral environments. We need fairness and balance. People who preach death and violence against minorities do not deserve a platform equal to those who don't. They are not providing anything worthy of discussion, full stop. That's the main plague of STEEM and fully decentralized media.
The truth gets lost when everyone is screaming differing things, not all ''''''opinions'''''' are equal.
Plus, the good opinions get flagged or ignored and the shitheads go trending here on STEEM, it isn't being used properly and probably never will.
Kinda rambly, and I'm a bit drunk at the moment, but I think the complete disregard of regulation and moderation is silly. Somethings just don't deserve to be stored.
I personally don't care to read anything Alex Jones writes as I think he's most likely a controlled opposition to make conservatives and libertarians look crazy. My personal beliefs are more inline with anarchy and voluntarism. This entire paragraph pointed out that I totally accept and understand that we use or don't use those platforms based on our own consent:
I don't think anyone has the right to censor another person based on opposing beliefs. I don't want echo chamber of people that agree with me at all times. Sometimes I have some pretty stupid beliefs and if I don't break them down and challenge them, then I never learn and grow and change. I don't think it's okay to say "we're going to accept and allow the beliefs of one group of people, but not another group because they disagree." That's taking a side and creating a bias. That is how we get things like racism and homophobia being the societal norm, because if the majority of people are racist and homophobic, then the extremist are the ones saying that's stupid.
It's easy to agree with a decision when it fits our own beliefs, but to look at the bigger picture and see how this is setting a precedent that could be used to silence others later is important. There is no equality unless we are all equal and that's why I'm saying it isn't about this one issue or Alex Jones. It's about setting the precedent that the government has any place regulating online free speech or private companies. Every time we give away freedoms by making more laws we are more and more limiting ourselves as a species and setting ourselves up to be controlled in the future.
Freeze Peach and telling your fans to burn queer people and kill minorities are two differing subjects. I had no problem with AJ until he started advocating for violent murder against minorities. That's not freeze peach, that's insanity and insanity should not be defended under any circumstance. It's not a principled issue imo. It's not so much what you say versus how you say it in this instance. I'll defend to death anyone who wants to say anything even if i vehemently disagree, but when we get to the discussion of genocide, murder, and commands for death of innocents, it's not a speech thing anymore. Words and actions aren't entirely separate and they have consequences.
I totally get that, and even respect that these companies want to create distance between themselves and that opinion. I just think there's actually a bigger agenda at play here and that Alex Jones is little more than a tool being manipulated or directly told to create an extreme case that will get people to demand government intervention. At the point that the government needs to get involved and tell private companies what they are and are not allowed to do or what is or isn't allowed to be said on their platforms, we're all losing. Just like what you said earlier about television being decentralized by YouTube. It only stays decentralized from the government until they are able to manipulate public opinion into asking them to get involved. Just like guns don't kill anyone, the person pointing the gun and pulling the trigger does, I don't think social media is trying to kill anyone. If people don't want him on a certain platform because of his violent outbursts, by all means, the platform or users should make a decision, but I really think this is more about trying to get the government involved and dictating what we can and cannot do online. That is what I'm 100% against.
Still, 1A does not protect against threats of violence and slander. They are very lenient on them, but not entirely against it. the right (and AJ) have perfected the "what we can get away with" strategy, which is why they cause such massive violence (neo nazi rallies like A12 starting tomorrow for example) but stay distant enough to not be jailed. It's a lot more horrifying than anything YouTube can do in the current era IMO
He was also unpersonned on linkedin at the same time. He didn't post any content there, just his professional details. That's creepy.
No idea about that stuff, but yeah that's pretty weird I'd say.