Society's disapproval cannot be incorporated into law in a free society.
This is a shallow definition of freedom, the sort of idea of freedom that children instinctively have when they're told to go to bed and start throwing a tantrum and it is largely what the internet was built on, maybe not accidentally by people who in many ways were juvenile adults.
There's a deeper version of freedom, a more adult one, that recognises not only ones capacity to do what one wants, but responsibility for the social good at large. Freedom doesn't just consist of running against the current, it also consists of maintaining enough order so that authentic expression of freedom is possible. A society where everyone is at the danger of being robbed while crossing the street is not free, it's just in chaos.
Likewise an internet without hierarchies, without controls and without enforcement of social taboos, be that by law, by gatekeepers or through exclusion incentivizes the very worst actors to run amok. Social approval should be incorporated into law, (either literal or culturally) because places that don't do it become uninhabitable. (as the current public internet increasingly is).
"Uninhabitable?" To me it seems like the web is plenty full of people, especially in the gated communities of the social networks. Small community forums are still running as they always have. I would even say that things have improved noticeably since 2016, which was a low point.
When you say "uninhabitable", I suspect that is actually code for "uninhabitable to me." I also find certain parts of the web distateful, and I avoid them. There are other places where I spend quite a bit of time, and I don't find them uninhabitable at all, nor do I find them becoming generally worse off.
The problem with your statement about taboo enforcement is the question of which taboos do you select? There is no such thing as an impartial viewpoint here. Creating a moral arbiter with actual power is just creating another cultural battlefield that will oscillate between left-wing and right-wing control. In that, it will further entrench the current two-party duopoly and prevent meaningful change. It will also force businesses to be dragged further into the conflict, and may eventually lead to explicitly partisan companies--something I hope to never see.
Frankly I find the mores of contemporary society to be awful. I wouldn't want their taboos enforced on me. In fact, I would actively resist it using whatever measures I could muster. But since I have the option of moving to spaces where dissent and nonconformism is allowed, I choose to do so.
exactly my point, focus on "gated" and "small". What do you think is it that distinguishes gated communities from the generic facebook newsfeed? The right to censor, judge who gets in or not, be able to exclude bad actors, and to have stake and identity when commenting, and to set common rules for conduct. the internet is transforming from a public space to an internet of private gated communities.
In this the internet perfectly mirrors declining cities that do not maintain their commons. A lot of fractured, tribal communities emerge who are not in contact with each other, the marketplaces and houses degrade, and a huge amount of resources is spent on simply insulating oneself from everyone else. It is not a pretty picture.
On who gets to decide what taboos exist? There is no need for a moral arbiter. In communities that function well taboos and rules reflect the consensus of its constituent members. The fact that Mark Zuckerberg gets to make institutional decisions for 2 billion people is another sign of dysfunction.
Would you be happy if right now someone forced you to go to bed at arbitrary times when you are not tired and potentially had work to do?
> who in many ways were juvenile adults
Are you calling them immature, youthful, or something else?
> a more adult one
No, a more authoritarian/collectivist one that consider abstract concepts such as society and morality as more important than the personal freedoms of a human. It takes out the individualism from a person and only considers them as a cog in a bigger machine which can be replaced at will. This mentality is what led us to absurd laws such as the ones that forbid sodomy, or alcohol, or any other victimless crime really.
> it also consists of maintaining enough order so that authentic expression of freedom is possible
What is this supposed to mean in the context of the internet?
> Social approval should be incorporated into law
Which goes back to the point about lgbt rights. Until recently most people were against them in the west and most people are still against them outside of the west. You should not need your village's permission to commit a victimless act.
> because places that don't do it become uninhabitable
Should it not be up to the "rulers" (that is the server owners) of these services to decide their rules then? It is not like it is the business of someone outside of the community whether said community becomes inhabitable.
> as the current public internet increasingly is
You say increasingly, yet it is only recently that there has been adaption of rules to satisfy the wider social pressure to censor.
the issue is of course, and that's what children don't realise, that seemingly arbitrary rules exist for good reason. In this particluar case it's because children are not able to delay immediate gratification. And I, as an adult, am in fact still constantly obligated to participate in farely arbitrary rituals, at work or otherwise.
>Are you calling them immature, youthful, or something else?
I'm saying they often exist in an environment that is very isolated from larger obligations to a community. The hacker and tech CEO as a middle aged man in a hoodie, often obsessed with youth and in a sort of state of permanent teenage rebellion, persists for a reason.
> that consider abstract concepts such as society and morality as more important than the personal freedoms of a human
society is not an abstract concept, the need for cooperation, order, safety, is present in every decision every day. It's individual freedom that is an abstract concept. In the case of cyber-libertarianism that is prominent in the tech world it's arguably not even 30 years old, and it only functions within a severely restricted space, both physically (say in the valley) or digitally (in some corner of the internet).
>What is this supposed to mean in the context of the internet?
it means that, if the public internet is supposed to be a healthy space, individuals who harm the well being of the larger community need to be able to be held accountable for their anti-social behaviour.
>Which goes back to the point about lgbt rights.
it's true that communities and social cohesion can sometimes unjustly punish people, however well functioning systems are capable of reform, and this is no reason to abolish social order altogether. To put it another way, do you think that within the LGBT community, laws against hate speech on online platforms are popular or not popular? Marginalised groups in particular see the value in collectively maintaining order, they least of all are going to believe in mythical individualism.
Maybe you were a lucky child where that was always the case. For myself and many people I know a lot of the rules/commands leveled at us were genuinely arbitrary, and the presence of arbitrary rules like that has a way of delegitimizing ones that only seem arbitrary.
You sound like a very silly child to me, with arguments such as this.
I don't think punching you in the face because I disagree with your opinion is a legitimate form of free expression, so I think your claim is overly broad. Clearly there are some right and wrong ways to express your freedom. Absolute freedom is simply incoherent.
That said, I agree with the general thrust of your point that we need to be forgiving with people's expression. People are imperfect, should be able to make mistakes and they should not suffer for the rest of their lives for earnestly expressing an unpopular opinion or engaging in debate on a contentious issue.
I think this will become a civil rights issue in coming years.