There is much talk in this community about censorship and freedom of speech. In these early days on Nostr, I think we have a higher concentration of individuals who are more skeptical of centralized power than is represented in the general population. I do believe that the same kind of individuals that are attracted to bitcoin are those who generally have trust issues when it comes to elites making decisions for them. But as we grow, this will not remain the case – at least not if we truly intend to make Nostr the network for everyone. As more people join the network, the culture will also become more heterogeneous, and percentages will begin to flatten out.
I have already seen a few conversations that I think are indicative of this diversity growing. I think diversity is good and I think we should be aiming for more of it, but some people coming from different perspectives may not understand the goals that were being pursued when this network was designed. Censorship resistance comes with its own assumptions. It assumes that censorship is negative, and that people cannot be trusted to censor one another equitably.
Any design decision has consequences, and one as major as this one has exceptionally large consequences. When censorship is done in a way we agree with, we refer to it is “moderation.” They are essentially the same thing, censorship and moderation, it is just that one has the negative connotation of being done unfairly, or by an untrusted party, while moderation has the connotation of being done in a way that benefits a specific group of people. In either case, someone is being silenced. Because Nostr is resistant to censorship, that also makes moderation exceedingly difficult, and in a way, that’s by design.
As far as I have been able to discern, Nostr takes two approaches to moderation: relay operators remove content that violates the law, and clients allow users to filter people (and in some cases content types) that they find offensive. This functions on the assumption that the individual is capable of handling at least occasional exposure to offensive content and is willing to perform janitorial services on their own feed. It also at least insinuates that content that is broadly unacceptable, even if it breaks no laws, will simply not find a market on Nostr and will eventually desist, in a sort of supply/demand interaction.
I should at least acknowledge my own biases, and state that I generally agree with these concepts, and believe them to be a function both of healthy individuals and a healthy polis. These beliefs certainly inform my views on this topic, although I do spend considerable effort trying to understand the other side of the debate.
On traditional, centralized social-networking services, a different approach to moderation evolved over time in response to a market demand to feel safe in online spaces. There were some tragic stories used as rallying cries during this period, about young people being bullied to the point of committing suicide, performing horrific acts of violence, etc. These were true stories that exposed the darker side of human nature. While I choose to optimistically believe that they are in the minority, there are people in this world who derive a sick sense of pleasure from causing others pain. These individuals are often suffering some mental illness, or are the victims themselves of some prior abuse, and rather than receiving help, they are left to form horrific, damaging behaviors that harm those around them, and drive them to seek other people to hurt to feel some power or control over their lives.
Any argument for free-speech absolutism that ignores the real harms, and even deaths caused by this behavior are short-sighted and ill-thought. Lives are indeed at stake, and no life should ever be thrown away to a cause, especially a cause that very well may not be their own. Victims of cyber-bullying and harassment deserve compassion, and the protection of the community.
There is another type of content that has stirred large groups to call for moderation online: extremism. Unfortunately, this is a problematic category on many levels. It is nearly impossible to consistently define what extremism actually is. At a core level, it is a socially defined concept, and is mutable over time within that society. There is some consistency at the extreme edges – most people agree that someone calling for genocide, for instance, is an extremist.
One real issue is that very few good-faith discussions about extremism take place. There is an almost ubiquitous pattern that takes place when these conversations take place:
- Person 1 suggests that extreme content should be censored.
- Person 2 responds that they have a problem with extremism as a concept being censored, because it is vague and subject to too many interpretations, and a vector for too many abuses.
- Person 1 states that Nazis have no place in civilized society and accuses Person 1 of supporting Nazis.
- Person 2 categorically denounces Nazis but tries to drill down on the fact that many groups who are far from being Nazis are also being suggested for censorship under the label “extremist.”
- Person 1 calls Person 2 a Nazi.
You could substitute a few labels for Nazi in the above pattern, but I chose one of the most common ones that I have seen. Person 2 attempts to express some sort of concern – very often because they have religious or political views that are not currently in vogue but would not hurt a fly – and this concern is at once labelled as being sympathetic to the most hateful or hurtful people in society.
The argument holds, however. There are societies, religions, and other forms of belief that view many others to be very extreme. Some of them genuinely dislike one another. Many of them, whether they even know what they claim to believe or not, may want to expound the virtues of their way of thinking over others to their fellow citizens. This is not harmful though, in any real sense. Indeed, it is probably the most productive of behaviors because it exposes an individual’s thoughts to criticism and correction. An opinion or belief that I never tell, in a world of others who never tell opinions or beliefs, could go for years without correction or refinement – to my great loss.
In most of the free countries of the world, until very recently, the group polis has erred very heavily on the side of allowing speech for this very reason. Entire continents have been built, countries have been born, and old ones have gone from poverty to wealth. Bad ideas being broken down, promising ideas being joined together and giving birth to new, even better ideas has given us more wealth, a higher standard of living, and more years of relative peace than the world has ever seen. Some abuses have happened and continue to happen to this day, but we find out about them, rail against them, and eventually many of them are ended.
This laissez faire attitude towards speech has certainly not come free either – we should not act like it hasn’t. The same power of speech can and has been used to oppress as well as to elevate. The battle for civil rights and women’s rights in my country were defined by both sides of this speech. But while this speech did cause harm to a considerable number of marginalized groups, we must keep in mind that the battle of words also produced speeches such as those by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Clara Barton. The words that won cannot be of any considerable debate. And those battles were very much won by words – words that changed the hearts and minds of entire nations of people.
It is natural and just to wish to feel safe. Before the Internet, our homes were our “castles” that we retreated into when we were vulnerable or wanted privacy. We could be alone with our thoughts, get away from those we disagreed with (except our spouses) and recover to face the world again. The Internet brought that world into our homes for the first time. While there can be no doubt that this did wonderful things for mankind – the access to education, information, and communication have raised people up, exposed injustice, and created a world-wide community – it also removed the last retreat we had to feel safe.
I believe that this is a part of the desire that so many have to make the Internet a safe place. While the Internet is often characterized as being a part of the public square, the fact of the matter is, it is also a part of our homes. The public square is now inside of our homes in a very tangible way, and many people feel that there is no safe place left to retreat to. It is easy (and lazy) to argue that, well, they are in control of their devices and could turn it off. That ignores the fact that young people lack self-control, that when every device in your home is connected to and requires the Internet it is difficult to control when your child is online, and it ignores the issue of addiction.
I am far from simply throwing aside self-responsibility, making good decisions, and taking control of one’s own life. I am simply pointing out that for many, it is not that easy. Many have not cultivated the skills and habits of self-reliance and accountability, and I do not say this to patronize them. We, as a society, have let down generations of people now by not teaching and enforcing these skills. We are also the beneficiaries of an exceptionally extended period where most of us have not experienced our homeland being invaded, starvation, or even much deprivation.
I have sat in the middle of a room, eating my last cold can of corn, weeping because I was in pain from hunger, freezing because I had no utilities in the middle of winter – and I can say with a straight face that I have not experienced the type of hardship that hardens men and women and makes them admirably self-reliant the way our forefathers and mothers were, or like some cultures are still living.
The question of censorship becomes much, much more complicated when it quits being theoretical and you begin to see the side of the teen girl with body image issues, or the young man who feels worthless. It is difficult to exclaim that people just need to take responsibility for their experience and dismiss their argument as being the drivel of some socialist woke hippie. When you put yourself in their shoes, and allow yourself to empathize with them, you feel compelled to supply an actual answer.
I do believe that the good of unhindered and free speech exceeds the costs many times over. I have failed to find any other system that doesn’t short circuit processes that I consider essential to the survival and growth of humankind. But it is hypocritical to refuse to grow in this stance as well. We can do more, and we should do more.
If we believe that free speech is truly what is best for society, then it is incumbent upon us to prepare our fellow person for it. There needs to be a constant and fresh effort to educate people on how to control their experience of it. There needs to be a genuine desire to build controls for users – not service providers – to tailor their experience and build up that self-sufficiency. And we need to build a community that genuinely reinforces healthy behaviors like turning Nostr off, taking a break, and being safe in our home with our family. We need to actively reach out to those who show signs of hurting. We need to defend those who are being bullied and be their friends – whether we like them or agree with them, or not. It is upon us to build this and take responsibility for our own convictions. If we will not, then we are not offering anything to improve the world, to help our fellows, and to build a better world.
Brennan Manning said, “In every encounter we either give life or we drain it. There is no neutral exchange.” The question of freedom vs. security can be debated philosophically all day long, but at the end of the day, it will be answered in all practical purposes by the people living life. We can choose to be the reasons freedom persists, or the reason the masses are frightened of it. Being a net positive is neither simple nor easy.
I strive for freedom.
-- Lord SameCat
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay