PieFed has done it once again, this time adding ‘warning’ labels for opposing ideological perspectives, well at least one; Can’t find any warnings for fascism or capitalism 🤔
This can be demonstrated here: https://piefed.social/c/globalnews/p/1697164/sudan-civil-war-spills-over-into-neighboring-chad-peoples-dispatch
The difference between a proprietary, politically charged, censored echo chamber and an open source “do whatever you want” platform should be obvious though.
Free speech is about the right to say what you want, meaning the government isn’t supposed to repress you for it, but it doesn’t guarantee the opportunity to do so on other people’s private platforms. However, in this case, you’re free to host your own platform where you can say what you want.
As an aside, I’d like to point out the “Paradox of Tolerance” and the proposed resolutions: If you’re an advocate for free speech, extending that freedom to those seeking to undermine it empowers them to use it against that freedom. That way, “free speech for all” is a good intention paving the road to authoritarian hell.
Hence, it is reasonable to deny a platform for those hostile to your principle. Popper frames it as a form of self-defense, to compromise part of the principle to protect the rest. Others frame it as a social contract of mutual respect, whereby the people violating it also forfeit their own right to demand it.
Either way, if “free speech for all” is a self-defeating principle, an open society needs to accept some measure of illiberty for its enemies if it is to be defensible.
Yeah, but let’s take a step back for a moment here and look at how the Fediverse is run by people. These communities and instances are all equipped to take action, moderate, curate, and create.
The people on the Fediverse are well equipped to grapple with the Paradox of Intolerance in a public forum without the walls listening in and making decisions about doors.
I’m not sure what you mean with “walls listening in” when we’re talking about a public forum, but the doors are perfectly openable. As the creator stated elsewhere, you can unban individual pages or delete the whole list. The “decision” is more like a suggestion.
I understand you’d rather not have that suggestion preconfigured. I personally see no harm in it.
What I mean is the code infrastructure of the public forum doesn’t need to do what the users operating the platform do. These sorts of flags and tags for judgements on commentary have a direct impact on interactions between users, which is the door part of analogy.
That defense works if PieFed is advertised as Remu’s private fiefdom. It’s a space for all the Remu fans to hang out and say things Remu wants to hear.
Do you feel that is how PieFed is advertised?