Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@koherecoWatchdog Which is exactly why no company can truly block speech.

All they can do is choose not to host it on their property. As is their right.

Their control only extends as far as their property line. Leave their property, and they have zero control over your speech. Choose to enter their property, and agree to play by their rules.

It's really an elegant system.

@koherecoWatchdog That's true, but nobody is owed this information either. It's incumbent on all of us to educate ourselves.

Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on information. People who choose to only consume information there are choosing to accept Facebook's version of events.

@koherecoWatchdog And fixing that would be a reasonable reform that many people could get behind.

@koherecoWatchdog If you don't get enough signatures, then the message wasn't important enough to get to the rep.
That's just good sense.

@koherecoWatchdog "Free speech" doesn't mean you're owed an audience by anyone. Social media is but one avenue of thousands for building an audience.
Anyone, including private property owners, are free to decide that they don't want to listen to or amplify your speech at any time they want. That's their right.

@koherecoWatchdog Choosing your forum is absolutely speech, in every possible way.

@koherecoWatchdog My views do happen to align with US 1A jurisprudence, yes. All rights need to be balanced against each other, and I think the balance the US has struck is the best humanity has come up with so far. It could use a few tweaks here and there, but I have yet to hear a reasonable and well-thought-out proposal for any major changes.

Oh, wow, Elon getting fact checked by the advertisers and users of the platform he now owns is just *chef's kiss*

@koherecoWatchdog I never said it was transparent. You don't need transparency to make value judgements about the results.

The local store is now also putting up santa clauses and snowmen and wreaths.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, it's November 7th and 80 degrees outside.

@koherecoWatchdog So... a petition?

Why do you think these concepts are unique to social media?

@koherecoWatchdog Open letters were a thing long before the internet.

@koherecoWatchdog The idea that people who use social media aren't aware of moderation is silly. It's pervasive and necessary for the platforms to function. Hence the constant complaints of "shadowbans".

But if people actually do want to remain uninformed about how those systems work, that's their choice too 🤷‍♂️

@koherecoWatchdog That's only true if the moderator is a public official.

If, otoh, they're only moderating a private space, then people's choices whether or not to engage with that space *are* the free marketplace of ideas in action.

Voting with our feet is just another form of speech.

Ugh, I'm getting spam texts for ballot measures for states 1500 miles away from me.

I cannot wait for election season to be over.

@seedyh Lol, you live on the Nightmare Before Christmas street!

@ilyaz No, I was making a point. Rejection of technological advancement is just as reactionary (if not more so) than willing technological consumerism.

Technology is just a tool, just like anything else. Rely too much on it, and every problem looks like a nail. Reject it, and you fall behind.

The real problems with social media (and most problems people have with tech) are human problems, old as time; not tech problems. Tech just happens to shine a light on our worst natures.

That's a good thing. We can't fix a problem until we identify it. But we also can't expect fixing tech to fix human problems.

So, in your argument, if the "restraint" you mention is about using technology less, I believe that's misguided. If, however, it refers to restraining yourself from making human mistakes with technology (i.e. feeding the trolls), that's maturity. But the distinction is important.

@ilyaz By that definition, wouldn't the Amish be extremely progressive?