Post by @jessyjeanne • Hey
Evening thoughts.. 🫣🫠 I read a lot about “Freedom of speech” here on Lens with people saying that we shouldn’t “cancel” or “restrict” anyone from sharing
Comments
- That's what I thinking about 🤔
Similarly, when it comes to children's access to the internet, it is important to strike a balance between freedom and protection. While parents have a role in monitoring their children's internet use, some level of censorship may be necessary to ensure that children are not exposed to content that could be harmful to them.
- IMO a very important discussion and glad you brought it up Jessy 🙌🏽
Here's how I look at it, solely from the context of social media where one communicates using text and media:
1. My freedom of expression should not override anyone else's, no matter how different their views are from mine.
2. My freedom of expression allows me to counter any views/opinions which I find wrong with my full might. There could be two results here, either, I convince the other party how ridiculous their points are, or I learn something new.
*However, things don't usually go this way, it usually ends up with name-calling etc..*
And therefore,
3. I reserve the right of stopping any communication with someone who retorts to petty word fights or slandering.
The thing about 'Morals' and 'Ethics' is that over a course of time, they change, for eg - there are plenty of people who spent their entire lives in prison because marijuana was, at a time considered immoral, and detested by society as a sinful thing. In those days, people thought they were 'protecting' society from smokers; *"How the turn tables"*
there are many such examples.
Also, a little off-topic but I feel it's necessary to mention here: The only censorship that is possible and rational is self-censorship or in small groups - Parents monitoring what their kids are on about is way easier and more effective than controlling an entire batch of students in a school. Any other kind of mass censorship leads to usually riots ( also, there is no decentralized way to do so imo). I know it's not the point of your post, but censoring things doesn't work over a long period of time, ever, and sets a bad precedent for solving problems through censorship instead of dialogue.
To answer your question *":what if people start sharing sexist, antisemitist, racist and all sort of “immoral and unethical” ideas/contents?!"*
- I'd counter it, if it means so much to me I'll counter it with all my might using text (and memes, of course) while not name-calling /labeling them anything. At the same time, I'll be walking away if the other person starts talking shit or starts attacking, that's where I (and others who will read it) will know that this person is BSing. The same goes the other way around if I'm stupid enough to slander.
We're lost the art of dialogue while being respectful. We started relying on a 3rd party as a proxy to solve it for us. Most Humans aren't full of evil, we just don't know them enough yet.
Much Love 💚
- according to my understanding, there are 2.5 (at least ;-)) layers:
0 blockchain + data storage
1 protocol (lens)
1.5 API (+ dispatcher most lens apps use to read and write data from/to lens)
2 lens front ends (like @lenster.lens , mobile apps, ...)
0 and 1 are (supposed to be) credible neutral
1.5 (I would expect to move towards 0 and 1 over time)
2 social consensus based. "Everyone" can build apps (frontends) on top of lens and decide which content will be displayed / filtered. E.g. someone can build a kids friendly education focused app on top of lens with a very strict content filter governed by a @cultivatordao.lens similar DAO. This app might display only a tiny fraction of all data available on lens and block most of the content and profiles.
- interesting i almost asked about this a few weeks ago was curious as well
- As a person who was raised under a dictator regime I will always be against all kind of censorship.
You always have the freedom to unfollow people. This is web3 and "*Should we let them do so?* " doesn't work here from a technical pov. Instead you can stop interacting with these people or create a bigger community to go against them by being louder.
If someone does something illegal (e.g. promoting drugs, hate speech etc), you can always report that to the authorities.
- Yes.
1) Censorship is a Web2 feature
2) Those who make hate speeches show themselves as hateful people
3) Bad content can be removed from the front-end s/o @cultivatordao.lens
- There was a good article I read about the topic that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach. Freedom of reach on platforms like Twitter and FB that was specifically geared for hate to thrive is something that most people still want to argue as "naturally occurring" when we know for fact it was juiced up for a reason and still don't know all the details of what money funded the turning points of them surviving and why. With something like @lensprotocol... if posts can't be amplified the same way as user26342973298 on twitter spitting bile and having it instantly retweeted by Elon or Lindsey Graham or any of these other idiots and us having the ability to downrank someone by not interacting with them then I guess that's all we can really hope for. Everyone STILL RETWEETING bad messages 8 years after this case study began is beyond me. Freaking screenshot it if you MUST show your followers **¯\_ȌᴥȌ_/¯**
Perhaps I'm naive to think that a real human promoting nazi shit potentially attempting to amplify via bot activity would gain followers in a place like this? Either way I'm going with the Keanu mentality these days for whatever beliefs. Racism, hatred, terrorism, threats et al is a different story though - that would be up to the dapp creators, no?
- Not sure why I have a publication hidden but I do- not offensive or any of that. I do think by attrition people who state those things you speak of go away. Also I don’t think it’s tolerated on a platform like this one either. There’s a report option right?
- Set up moderation of harmful contents and inappropriate behaviours on a Decentralized Social Media is a big challenge / non-solve problem atm
🤔🤔 How to guarantee the decentralization of this part of the infrastructure that is moderation when it requires a great reactivity and daily flexibility?
- So, who’s moral compass are we telling everyone to come to consensus on?
- Freedom of speech never was about saying anything you want without consequences. People don't understand the concept, they think it is an anarchy, and in reality it is not. Banning users who break rules is the basic requirement of any healthy social network.
- Its a tough topic for sure. It gets hard to know where to draw the line. Anything malicious and ill intended should be banned.
However, I am still an advocate for free speech and would rather people just blocked them or engaged in healthy discourse to try and change their POV
- If it's decentralized, it should be decentralized. I thought web3 was all about owning your data. So if a group of moral people or algorithm has to dictate what you can and cannot say, post or share, then, it's not totally decentralized and your data is no longer in your control.
Everybody just be who they are. There should be a block or restrict button though.
- And who decides what is moral and what is immoral? The majority? Do we take a vote on every post as to whether it's morally acceptable? Do we need 50.1% or 67% to deprive someone whose opinion we don't share the right to speak?
Or should there be a moral board? The most neutral people will definitely apply for it, that's foreseeable.
I'm Jewish, but I don't want anti-Semitic - or maybe just anti-Semitic-sounding - statements to lead to censorship and suppression of the exchange of opinions.
My sister sees herself as a feminist. She has never seen any point in taking supposedly misogynist statements out of context and shaming the donkey who made them.
What I find far more dangerous than the small number of anti-Semitic, misogynistic, racist, or otherwise "immoral" statements on social media is the self-importance of self-appointed moral police officers who determine what is good and what is evil and who determines who gets to speak and who is not allowed to say anything more.
That's dictatorship.
- For people with evil ideas they will always rally together in any way, whether you use centralized software or decentralized platforms, we can do more to restrain our own behavior, find our own inner peace.
When we see the similar information just go to block it and report to reduce the weight of these contents, so that fewer people will see this..
- I agree 1000% The post above is immoral. We need to ban @jessyjeanne immediately.
- Hi @jessyjeanne.lens ! I'm paying gas to post this comment so that shows how passionate I'm about about this topic 😔.
Freedom of speech (FOS) is not the same as hate speech (HS) or freedom to spread misinformation (FOM). Let's consider how we've dealt with FOM & HS historically & why they've been on the rise in last 6-10 years.
We've always had morale and ethical guardrails that we thought twice before crossing! Even the fringe politician or commentators wanted to cross them, there was no platform for them to express HS & FOM. Even on the rare occasions when they had expressed such opinions in public, they were swiftly ignored, denounced and blacklisted from media platform.
What has changed in the last 6-10 years is that now there is a platform and growing ecosystem for these people to express HS & FOM. These platforms are financed by people with deep pockets and with media reach beyond your imagination. Fox Corp in the US owns most small regional TV channels with viewership numbers no other channel can come close to. And not sure you know, the TV channel Pierce Morgan works for us also owned by Fox. we have seen first with Brexit and then with Trump's election that FOM & HS can be used as a tool because there is a growing population that no longer care about the moral and ethical red line.
Trump and his friends at fox bullied women, made sexist remarks, vilified the black community - and became the president of the US. And he succeeded because everything the media on the left tried to shut him down, only amplified his message and his growing supporter base who believed in ridiculous conspiracy theories fed to them by fox and other fringe right wing media.
The point I'm trying to make is, you can shut down , blacklist someone all you want. But you are not their audience, they don't care about your and my opinion. Everything they say and do is targeted for their own base and us blacklisting them only amplifies their message to their audience. Where you see justice, they see attempt to hide truth and suppress voice.
So how do we stop this ? There's no quick solution. We have to start with the audience and not the speaker. We need to bring back the moral and ethical guardrail. How do we achieve that? - I have no fricking idea. But if we a start conversations in the right path, a solution will eventually come, we can all eat fries under one umbrella ☔
- Hello Jessy. I agree with you . Total freedom doesn't belong to the men kind. Although I believe that cancel culture is terrifying I agree with you that some lines have to be drawn in order for everyone to feel safe.
- That's a difficult but interesting question.
Generally, what can we consider as "immoral" or "unethical" ? How to define the boundaries?
About some subject, it can be obvious but most of the time, it's tricky and the difference between a controversial opinion and an unethical idea is very thin.
- I love the way you approach this issue. So thoughtful and objective. 👏
- willing to be the judge and deem comments appropriate and inappropriate 😆
- The problem is then who becomes the judge of what can/cannot be said.
- you're right, 100% agree with you!!!
- Totally agree
- I wish you every day happy.