Inaction is a Form of Action

The story of the no-politics diner.

And why "don't discuss politics" and tone-policing *is* political. Most especially when it limits minority and disenfranchised voices.

(This also isn't an argument for free-for-all speech. It's complicated, Peeps.)

...since the Reagan years, big business and its advocates in the US government and judiciary have been steadily “reforming” antitrust law on lines proposed by the disgraced economist Robert Bork.... Bork argued that the only time the US should wield its antitrust authority was when there was clear evidence of “consumer harms” in the form of higher prices in the immediate aftermath of an anti-competitive action.

Show thread

@dredmorbius For the record, #RobertBork was not an economist and he wasn't disgraced -- though he was slurred by Senator Kennedy.

@mpjgregoire Fair points, though:

1. The language is Doctorow's not mine. Might dropy Cory a note.

2. Bork's work has had an outsized impact on economic doctrines of monopoly, despite his legal background.

@dredmorbius Yes, I read the original article, and I know that's where the claim originated.

If you do decide to contact Cory Doctorow, you could ask him why he omitted the Fediverse from his article. His recommendations for the government may be worthwhile, but he could also suggest something simple for individuals to do.

uspol, big tech 

uspol, big tech 

uspol, big tech 

uspol, big tech 

uspol, big tech 

uspol, big tech 

@dl @dredmorbius Good points. #Reddit is the "no politics diner" in my experience. You get a dozen moderators and it becomes a race to the bottom with #censorship coupled with #shadowbanning to hide the censorship.

@resist1984 Subreddit quality varies greatly.

No moderation and bad moderation are *both* bad. The truth about any regulation is that it has to be all of effective, competent, principled, and equitable.

That's not something that you can achieve by a simple formula.


@dredmorbius @dl i would not say they are equally bad. Poor moderation results in corruption, injustice, and abuse of power. Lack of moderation is only bad in the sense that everyone has to do their own janitorial work but at least views get equal representation.

@resist1984 Lack of moderation entirely tends to drive off both clue and minority / oppressed viewpoints. It also kills virtually all intelligent conversation, or sincere attempts to bridge deep divides in beliefs, experience, or goals.

The result is an environment in which *only* the obnoxious, toxic, or idiotic can survive. And do.


@dredmorbius @dl you're describing lack of moderation coupled with poor tooling. A vast majority of moderators are corrupt, as they want their own view of the world to have an edge. Voting systems enable collective moderation - and they can be implemented in a way that nothing is censored (just folded or quarantined).

@dl @dredmorbius I think we need to evolve to a point were not only are posts scored based on reader feedback, but every post could have a per-reader score based on others who vote similarly.

@resist1984 Again: some parts of Reddit work, some don't. On a whole, I've found it no longer suits my own purposes, and have long criticised elements:

There's the problem that subs can be *and are encouraged to be* taken over:

And that its conversational dynamic is simply broken:


@dredmorbius @dl "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." -- Desmond Tutu. Bans on political chatter effectively favor oppressors.

@resist1984 Thanks, excellent quote.

I've been reasoning my way to that belief myself over the past few years. Tutu's agreement and formulation are validation and well put.


Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!