Oddbean

If we're not saying "it was a bad thing to deplatform him" — what are we even doing here? nostr:nprofile1qqs8d3c64cayj8canmky0jap0c3fekjpzwsthdhx4cthd4my8c5u47spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7qg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qy3hwumn8ghj7urjdau8jtt90pcx2unfd4jkuapwdah8yetwv3jhytnrdaks0duay6 https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxIgWQcI4u3mIMMXBspuOSoyxjt83vxHF8?si=ABlpO0KIxWRyLb0g

I am in favor of the historical deplatforming people who are actively promoting the holocaust while it is happening during WWII. You might want to give Hitler and his supporters a platform while they were running death camps. But I’m not. Mass murder is wrong and if jailing them for that mass murder is justified the so is taking away their megaphone.

I am with you on your position that violence and genocide is bad and I wouldn't give them a platform either, but historical cases aside, do you believe we should have protocols that allow for censorship-resistant and deplatforming-resistant public communications?

@El Flaco bo que piensas estamos haciendo acá? Fumando porro con un sueño que todo va a estar mejor si tenemos código para inventar un nuevo mundo de hadas y unicornios? Claro quiero tener una protocolo donde no puede existir control central que puede censurar gente. Pero esto no significa que no puedo tener un espacio en mi relay o mis grupos donde si puedo decidir que comportamiento es aceptable o inaceptable? Free speech es el derecho a hablar. Pero también tenemos el derecho de decidir a quien vamos a escuchar. No quiero una red donde puedo decidir a quien puedo conectar. Pero tampoco quiero una que mi obliga a hablar con vos o ver tus comentarios.

> que piensas estamos haciendo acá? Most people are excited about nostr because it makes it hard to deplatform dissenting voices by virtue of its architecture and I am no different. Hearing you sympathize with deplatforming in the context of a presentation about Nostr put me off, that's why I had to ask directly. Mind you, I'm not questioning property rights. We're in agreement that you should have every right to kick me out of your living room or your relay for any or no reason, only listen to and associate with the people that you like. My question to you was about deplatforming as in restricting a person’s ability to communicate publicy - specifically in the context of Nostr. Glad to hear that you do want Nostr to be a protocol that enables even speech you don't like. Thanks for clarifying.

Yeah but in the context of my talk I was explaining how a very famous example of past deplatforming was Father Coughlin who was advocating the US join the Nazi’s side in WWII. He was justifying the holocaust. Then he was deplatformed and his weekly radio program listened to by 25% of Americas was take off radio stations because of a pressure campaign and advertising boycott. I was saying this is a case of deplatforming in the past that wasn’t a bad thing. Just like taking out the radio stations in Rwanda that pushed for genocide was good because it saved lives. My point is there are times in the past when people were deplatformed and it was the right decision. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

The information we have about both historic cases is second-hand. On top of that, history is written by the victors and there is a good amount of nuance lost over time, as your example of Father Coughlin demonstrates: barely anyone knows today that there was factions in the US supporting Germany, and that's mostly because it didn't fit the narrative that the US wanted to establish in the history books. Secondly, we cannot epistemologically know if deplatforming Coughlin or the Hutu radio saved lives. It's even possible that shutting down the Hutu radio could have inadvertently silenced moderate Hutu voices that might have offered alternative perspectives or advocated for peace that could have changed the dynamics of the genocide. My point is it is impossible to attribute positive consequences to the restriction of speech, but the negative consequences of restriction of speech are always self-evident.