Comment Re:Anything owned by someone is not uncancelable (Score 1) 321
This argument is so tiresome.
No corporation is required to create a platform where people can post whatever they want, whenever they want.
What is really tiresome is the assumption that this argument is about the inability to distinguish between Free Speech as guaranteed in the US constitution and the issue of actual Free Speech on the Internet in a world enthusiastically hurtling towards autocracy.
If you don't like those terms then don't join the site.
This is exactly it. Why must it be a site? The presumption that speech must exist one a platform someone owns rather than be transmitted through a distributed system of nodes which agree to speak the same protocol is the problem.
The government cannot infringe your right to free speech - But you do not have a right to "free speech" on private platforms.
First of all, the US government supposedly, currently cannot infringe on my right to free speech. I am not trying to repeat the same tiresome argument about what does and does not constitute free speech in just one country. I'm talking abut the need for an actual uncensorable platform to exist globally. As shocking as it may seem, no everyone lives in the US, and there is intrinsic value in having a global platform that is difficult for any specific entity censor or repress.
If you want to build a truly anonymous free-speech platform go ahead - But like Parler, Truth Social and all the rest you will find it largely empty. Why? Because average people don't enjoy hanging out on sites filled with hateful racist sexist ranting.
They much prefer sites with moderation policies that keep the toxic scum out.
The idiotic ramblings of Kanye and his ilk are immaterial. Every online discussion system will have its share of toxic morons. I'm arguing for the existence of a Usenet-like system with a difficult-to-abuse moderation model (i.e., mostly persistent identities, with the ability of individual users to block specific users or keywords, etc ) where each user gets a single moderation vote. Something like the bastard-child of Reddit and Usenet, minus the corporate overlords and IP address records which can be given to repressive governments. If the wrong comment can send you to jail in your local environment, whether the site censors it or not is immaterial -- but whether your identity is secret is not.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to think of such a system. I'd be interested to know if anyone has proposed or created one.