PwnallthethingsThe whole debate over free speech and moderation really always just comes down to "what are the rules, who sets them, and enforces them". Everything else is always just instrumental to that question.
Shrikant Joshi
Escarpment@shrikant @Pwnallthethings I think it's turtles all the way down. The government is one representative of other people or society. But so is "the court of public opinion." So are smaller interpersonal dynamics. Do you ice out your friend for disagreeing with you, or do you grant them the right to state a dissenting opinion without draconian consequences?
@Pwnallthethings @shrikant Maybe a better example is at work. Do you deny someone a promotion or dock them in their performance review for stating a dissenting opinion? Or do you cultivate a workplace culture where people are encouraged to state opinions that challenge the prevailing opinion at the company?
@escarpment You are asking a very different question than the OP, @Pwnallthethings, IMO.
OP is trying to establish the premise that the rule-setter gets to decide boundaries of acceptability. You are questioning specifics of that boundary-setting. OP is pointing to the boundary-setter as the point of interest, you seem to be questioning the boundaries themselves.
Neither of you is wrong. You're both looking at two different things.
@shrikant @Pwnallthethings Hm I don't think that's what I'm questioning. I don't think I'm questioning the rules and boundaries themselves.
I think I'm saying "the question of what are the rules and who decides" is the basic political question. And that question applies to states and "state-likes", where a "state-like" is any association of people whatsoever.
@shrikant @Pwnallthethings it just so happens that states (governments) have really thorough answers to those questions. Who decides? Elected reps who are elected every X years according to Y procedure. What are the laws? The US Constitution and the US Code.
State-likes, on the other hand, do not have such solid answers to these questions, but could.
@shrikant @Pwnallthethings What are the rules in the state-like entity known as public opinion? Don't do things people disapprove of? Who decides? The public? What are the consequences? Ridicule, derision, threats. My point is, in this light, public opinion seems like a really bad state-like with arbitrary rules and consequences.
@escarpment Public opinion has never been a good enough model to apply the definition of 'state-like entity', IMHO. It is little above 'kangaroo court' and just below 'media circus' and both those are nowhere near the list of 'state-like entity', if you ask me.
(1/2)
@escarpment At the same time we do live in a society, which is essentially a proxy for public opinion, right? Well, a society is also governed by laws and laws (until now) were forged after well-reasoned debate,
That is what makes society and public opinion very different from each other. And, that's also why it should always stay that way, IMHO...
@shrikant I agree the court of public opinion is a "kangaroo court", but my thesis for *why* is because it's a state-like with really bad answers to who decides, what are the rules, what are the consequences.
Take another state-like: a mastodon instance. Who decides? The admin or a moderation team. What are the rules? The 10 or so rules listed on the about page of the server. What are the consequences? Blocked accounts & defederation
@shrikant So a mastodon instance seems to have better answers than the court of public opinion, but worse answers than the US govt about who decides, what are the rules, what are the consequences.