Subnostr

I have the (maybe controversial) opinion that we do not need "free speech platforms" and, in fact, such things are probably undesirable. For reasons related to the point I'm getting at in the OP.

Which isn't to say free speech isn't of critical moral importance.

Just that, one should not expect to find it manifesting from within coherent systems -- but only around such systems. The idea that an integrated platform, with a common interface, a singular monetization model, and standardized structure will ever exist in a free speech ideal, and rather, not *require* editorialization to

maintain stability, is a misguided idea.

People who claim to care about free speech, are often paying attention to wrong things. Which is why I think "protocols, not platforms" is the clarion call for a better internet and better society.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Brock 3y ago

This was always my natural reaction to people screaming about Twitter being editorialized. My response was always "of course, it is. It's an ad supported social network, selling a product to advertisers, whose brand images are going to place editorial constraints on the platform". In other words, it's a regular business. But people said "no, no ... it's more than that. It's metaphysically morphed into a universal town square, which puts it on the level of the state, in terms of evaluating the limits on its own power". This is a philosophically bankrupt position.

The very fact Nostr exists is the ultimate repudiation of this position. The capacity of humans to build alternatives and rethink the internet and social media was always there.

jack 3y ago

💯