We can likely reach pre-2016 levels of Internet freedom again. I'm not sure if Gab is a critical piece of that, but they seem to be doing mostly the right things right now (though I would like to see some sort of /r/all mechanism for popular activity, right now feeds appear to be completely self-curated).
Before the masses were corralled into walled gardens. If a free and open Internet was a threat to gatekeepers, walled gardens are the solution. You can say anything you want on their platforms, as long as it adheres to the party's content guidelines.
The gate-kept illusion of freedom is arguably more toxic, because it normalizes the curated garden of propagandized views.
Yes, you have more options than broadcast TV, newspapers and radio. Especially if you espouse mainstream views which one would easily find on those sources.
There was a time before eternal September, let's call it August. Google searches were populated by independently run forums and websites. Tech giants were not bent on imposing their political will. Individuals were getting the word out about Hans Blix on independent sites. One can only wonder how Twitter or Facebook's fact checkers would handle that today.
"Experts confirm Saddam has WMD"
In the august days before fact checkers and Facebook, users could still obtain free hosting. They could even post on forums without learning the basics of HTML. That's when the history of the Internet turned.
What some people don’t seem to understand about the first amendment is that while the government is obligated to not stop you from publishing, no private party is obligated to assist you.
What some people don't understand about freespeech is that it's a bigger principle then just the 1st amendment protections. Most of us are not arguing that companies ARE violating the law/first amendment. only that political/religious speech restrictions by large gate keeping institutions can have similar negative effects on society. We are arguing for ether more protections to be put in place or even for social change where instead of demanding companies censor these who disagree with us we demand they allow them to speak, EVENTHOUGH we disagree with them.
> Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
> Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
> There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.
~ John Stuart Mill, On Library (1859)
The total audience for the internet was far less in those days.
Now the entirety of society is an "internet addict". I'll admit the nerd inside me feels a bit vindicated, even if horrified overall with where the internet has taken us.
The other day I was thinking back to when I was younger and people freaked out at the possibility of dating someone you met online. Now with dating apps it's the norm.
To the contrary, the Internet was still growing by leaps and bounds. I propose that the Internet had reached a point where vested interests needed to capture it to maintain control of the narrative.
I'm not sure how old you are, but when is this time you speak of? AOL had users in a walled garden for decades. Then those users moved to myspace, then facebook. You're going to need to be more specific about this magical time when the average user was somehow "free of walled gardens".
There have always been alternatives to the walled gardens, they have never been larger than their walled alternatives.
Facebook and Twitter are actively policing speech that is not illegal.
That is why your analogy is inapt.
The free hosting providers were not engaging in political censorship. Google had a maxim, "Don't be evil". They didn't have infoboxes explaining, "Experts agree that enhanced interrogation is not torture".
Maybe start by explaining how they were worse?
"There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."
But I can't find an official source.
Consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine your favorite actor comes out with some really, really horrible political views, like women should be the chattel slaves of their male guardians. For a lot of people, even maybe you yourself, discovering this about a person is going to heavily color your views not only of him but of other things he does, and you're not going to enjoy seeing films he stars in any more. Since the film studios aren't idiots, he's going to be essentially blacklisted from any future roles. There's the consequences.
However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone.
Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!
I don't like radical anti-abortionists who camp out at abortion clinics, but I recognize we all have this right. I wish they would pursue their goals more civilly, they would likely get some sympathy if they were humane about it, for example.
That's probably what mc32 is referring to.
Non radical anti abortionists are most moms and dads who prefer not to abort but don't go out there and agitate.
edit: but apparently I misinterpreted the comment so mea culpa, my bar for "radical" is different than mc32's.
It boils down to this: if you think wrongly you aren't allowed to speak. We have all been down this rabbit hole before, none of this is new, it never works out well.
If you disagree with the above, I'm afraid it's a misunderstanding of the intentions of the first amendment to the US constitution.
Additionally, hate speech is also violence, and you cannot hide behind free speech to say "but look, you're doing physical violence to me". So, yeah, beat up nazis.
2. You'd be fine if republicans commit "self defense" by punching ANTIFA and BLM activists, right?
Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.
If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
So you'd be fine if amazon refused to serve you because you're a pro-union sympathizer, right?
I can't believe people don't see the similarity and are willingly going down this path. It's so blindingly obvious that it's the same tactic used in Stalinism, Maoism and McCarthyism but people gleefully want to wrap their arms around it.
None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
Totally agreed. Notably, nobody has suggested this. And nobody has, at least so far, been prosecuted for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
At best, those "peaceful" protestors (who somehow in their naive purity managed not to be able to read the vibe of a crowd that erected a noose and gallows outside the White House, or notice the rioting, broken doors and tear gas) are still at least guilty of trespassing, and some of vandalism.
Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.
And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.
I'll let the Justice Department know they can drop all charges because slumdev from the internet has rendered their verdict.
>Vandalism would only apply to those who stole or defaced something, certainly not the majority.
The majority didn't enter the Capitol, and the majority haven't been charged with anything. If your assertion is that people are being arrested and charged with simply being there the actual criminal charges levied prove otherwise[0,1]. People who have been accused of committing actual crimes are being charged for those crimes.
>And neither of these charges justifies holding a political prisoner for 6+ months without trial, as the US government has done.
They aren't political prisoners. They aren't being persecuted for their political beliefs. Most people charged are out on bail, and the ones who aren't are the ones charged with serious crimes.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...
[1]https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/six-months-january-6th-attac...
If the accusation is true, then it's a crime and the punishment should be much more severe. If the accusation is false, then it's a non-issue (and clearly not a crime), and there should be no punishment.
Big tech and universities do not have the skills, experience, resources or obligation to resolve the question of guilt clearly and fairly. Let's leave that to the courts.
I'm not saying things are perfect or that there aren't any problems, but I feel sometimes the historical perspective is a bit lost.
How is the "historical perspective" relevant here? Are you just arguing "we actually have it pretty good right now compared to the past so we shouldn't feel so bad about freedom of speech slipping"?