Online platforms are not common carriers, at least not according to Title II. Nor should they be. They shouldn't be forced to carry all content, and that's a good thing.

Recent court cases in Florida and Texas have ruled this way, and the Supreme Court is due to write an opinion on the state-level rules that would have made it illegal to curate content on social media.

Removing the "right to censor" also means requiring blogs to host all comments and spam regardless of content.

The main issue on censorship and moderation stems from the jawboning at the hands of US agencies – directly or indirectly – which should absolutely be illegal.

Ultimately, nostr can win not because social media platforms will be "forced" to carry all content, but because online users will recognize that the censorious platforms suck and will choose to go elsewhere. I'd rather have that freedom to choose, and continue Section 230 as it applies to online platforms, than have the government make that determination.

Section 230 made the Internet what it is. Setting up exemptions among Internet platforms would effectively weaken it, and that would harm free speech online.

It's not so cut and dried. Statism and anarchy are not the two Boolean options, nor really is it a linear spectrum between them. These just happen to be the two most pitted against each other in these circles.

Localism puts power together with vicinity. The closer you are to something, the more authority you ought to have, including the most fundamental unit: the person.

A father properly leading his family is not statism. Sure, the opportunity for tyranny exists, as it does on every level of society, but his proper exercise of authority does not make him a tyrant.

The community can collectively decide to exclude a member if that member is in violation of others, such as a family of criminals, or mafia, can be legitimately ejected from a neighborhood. That is not statism, but the local people making decisions that are best for it. They can even collectively decide to appoint an individual to carry out such work for the good of the community and its members: in a word, a sheriff.

Statism itself is the view that the state is the source of authority, or that its authority is absolute, and anarchy is the denial that any authority is legitimate. Localism is the balanced understanding that authority does indeed exist, is legitimate, and ought to be held in as low a level as possible to achieve an end.

To illustrate, take sustenance. A family is rightfully concerned about each individual's food. The community ought not be concerned of a single individual's food, but it ought to be of whole families. A city ought not be concerned with a single family's food, but it ought concern itself with whole communities. The state ought not concern itself with a single community's food, but it ought to of whole cities. You get the picture.

Tyranny occurs when a higher authority concerns itself with a lower matter than is appropriate, and that is not limited to the state alone, or even the city. Localism puts that authority in the appropriate hands.

I can put my fist through a dry wall, surely a bullet isn't a problem?

THE TIKTOK BAN BILL GOING THROUGH CONGRESS RIGHT NOW WILL GIVE GOVERNMENT INSANE POWER TO RESTRICT SPEECH.

AT THE SAME TIME SECTION 230 PROTECTIONS ARE ABOUT TO BE NEUTERED BY THE SUPREME COURT WHICH WILL ADD AN INSANE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY TO CENTRALIZED PLATFORMS - INEVITABLY INCREASING CENSORSHIP.

RESTRICTING FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AMONG OUR CORRUPT POLITICAL CLASS.

NOSTR IS ABOUT TO HAVE ITS MOMENT TO SHINE. WE NEED TO BE READY FOR BILLIONS OF NEW USERS.

lol exactly, and not 2% but 0.2%. Bank of America for instance gives 0.1% APY on consumer deposits. 🤣

It's crazy how we all (society in general) just accept the existing financial/banking systems as simply the way it ought to be.

"The State does not exist but is merely a pattern of human behavior"

By that logic, you may say the same of any organization. they aren't beings to themselves, but families, friendships, and communities do exist. So, too, with larger and more formal social structures. Some of these structures are good for human flourishing, and some are negative, but this has mostly to do with the motivation of the individuals who compose the structure and their founding principles, and not so much by the fact that they are organized.

The true problem is the inversion of service. The family serves its members' happiness, and the happiness of the family is dependent on the happiness of its members. Likewise, a happy community is so because it's members are happy and it properly serves the happiness of the families who compose it. Finally, the state, kingdom, or otherwise governing structure ought to organize and serve the communities that compose it, not the communities serving the governing structure.

Localism is the future, not anarchy nor statism.

"The State does not exist but is merely a pattern of human behavior"

By that logic, you may say the same of any organization. they aren't beings to themselves, but families, friendships, and communities do exist. So, too, with larger and more formal social structures. Some of these structures are good for human flourishing, and some are negative, but this has mostly to do with the motivation of the individuals who compose the structure and their founding principles, and not so much by the fact that they are organized.

The true problem is the inversion of service. The family serves its members' happiness, and the happiness of the family is dependent on the happiness of its members. Likewise, a happy community is so because it's members are happy and it properly serves the happiness of the families who compose it. Finally, the state, kingdom, or otherwise governing structure ought to organize and serve the communities that compose it, not the communities serving the governing structure.

Localism is the future, not anarchy nor statism.

I've never heard of Yewtube before.

Good Morning,

Best tool in the toolbox.

#Gunstr #Humpday #Nostr