Hacker News Reader

Comment by kemonocode | Hacker News Reader

My main issue with all these platforms supposedly being born to defend "free speech" is that they're a reactionist measure from certain ideas being deemed inappropriate by the common populace, so it's less about all kinds of free speech and more about protecting their speech.

I'm convinced that no centralized platform is able to provide true free speech and even if it does, people should not be denied of the benefits of moderation/curation so I do think distributed/federated platforms are the way to go, even if they have issues scaling up. True, in the end, they may just end up being bubbles and echo chambers, but you ultimately get to choose which ones to engage in, instead of leaving that choice to someone else and their fickle mood to appease shareholders.

View on HN

There is at least a tension between those who want to say tough controversial things and those who don't yet dare to speak out their inner feelings and insecurities.

To construct a space that can handle both is probably impossible. Tough hard arguing has it's merit and value, but often it can turn into a contest who is the most stubborn, most convinced and least principled actor in the discussion. This kind of "war with words" scares away a whole other world of speech that could never happen in it's wake.

I am not saying that we should go without one or another, but saying a space for free speech is one where you can say controversial in a rough voice is not necessarily an indicator for the value of the conversations that take place. Think about HN: how would the conversations on here work without the restraint everybody shows by staying on topic?

>contest who is the most stubborn, most convinced and least principled actor in the discussion. This kind of "war with words" scares away a whole other world of speech that could never happen in it's wake.

There are many games people play in conversation. Nothing about preventing "tough arguing" actually gives way for "principled actor[s] in the discussion."

In fact, "tough arguing" is probably the MOST-desirable game, because it's the least disingenuous. The value of conversations can go negative when someone is using socially-acceptable bullying or just plain lying and manipulating. And the people using those tactics will leverage the norms of polite conversation to outright avoid/dodge being called out.

> I'm convinced that no centralized platform is able to provide true free speech

Signal is centralized and provides true free speech. End to end encryption means they don't know what you're saying, so they have no way to know what to block. That is comparing apples to oranges though, I assume you meant a Facebook or Twitter type of social network.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com