Declaration of Digital Independence

Version 1.3 (June 29, 2019; version history)

See also: Social Media Strike! -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources

Humanity has been contemptuously used by vast digital empires. Thus it is now necessary to replace these empires with decentralized networks of independent individuals, as in the first decades of the Internet. As our participation has been voluntary, no one doubts our right to take this step. But if we are to persuade as many people as possible to join together and make reformed networks possible, we should declare our reasons for wanting to replace the old.

We declare that we have unalienable digital rights, rights that define how information that we individually own may or may not be treated by others, and that among these rights are free speech, privacy, and security. Since the proprietary, centralized architecture of the Internet at present has induced most of us to abandon these rights, however reluctantly or cynically, we ought to demand a new system that respects them properly. The difficulty and divisiveness of wholesale reform means that this task is not to be undertaken lightly. For years we have approved of and even celebrated enterprise as it has profited from our communication and labor without compensation to us. But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative animus guides the centralized networks of the Internet and the corporations behind them.

The long train of abuses we have suffered makes it our right, even our duty, to replace the old networks. To show what train of abuses we have suffered at the hands of these giant corporations, let these facts be submitted to a candid world.


They have practiced in-house moderation in keeping with their executives’ notions of what will maximize profit, rather than allowing moderation to be performed more democratically and by random members of the community.

They have banned, shadow-banned, throttled, and demonetized both users and content based on political considerations, exercising their enormous corporate power to influence elections globally.

They have adopted algorithms for user feeds that highlight the most controversial content, making civic discussion more emotional and irrational and making it possible for foreign powers to exercise an unmerited influence on elections globally.

They have required agreement to terms of service that are impossible for ordinary users to understand, and which are objectionably vague in ways that permit them to legally defend their exploitative practices.

They have marketed private data to advertisers in ways that no one would specifically assent to.

They have failed to provide clear ways to opt out of such marketing schemes.

They have subjected users to such terms and surveillance even when users pay them for products and services.

They have data-mined user content and behavior in sophisticated and disturbing ways, learning sometimes more about their users than their users know about themselves; they have profited from this hidden but personal information.

They have avoided using strong, end-to-end encryption when users have a right to expect total privacy, in order to retain access to user data.

They have amassed stunning quantities of user data while failing to follow sound information security practices, such as encryption; they have inadvertently or deliberately opened that data to both illegal attacks and government surveillance.

They have unfairly blocked accounts, posts, and means of funding on political or religious grounds, preferring the loyalty of some users over others.

They have sometimes been too ready to cooperate with despotic governments that both control information and surveil their people.

They have failed to provide adequate and desirable options that users may use to guide their own experience of their services, preferring to manipulate users for profit.

They have failed to provide users adequate tools for searching their own content, forcing users rather to employ interfaces insultingly inadequate for the purpose.

They have exploited users and volunteers who freely contribute data to their sites, by making such data available to others only via paid application program interfaces and privacy-violating terms of service, failing to make such freely-contributed data free and open source, and disallowing users to anonymize their data and opt out easily.

They have failed to provide adequate tools, and sometimes any tools, to export user data in a common data standard.

They have created artificial silos for their own profit; they have failed to provide means to incorporate similar content, served from elsewhere, as part of their interface, forcing users to stay within their networks and cutting them off from family, friends, and associates who use other networks.

They have profited from the content and activity of users, often without sharing any of these profits with the users.

They have treated users arrogantly as a fungible resource to be exploited and controlled rather than being treated respectfully, as free, independent, and diverse partners.


We have begged and pleaded, complained, and resorted to the law. The executives of the corporations must be familiar with these common complaints; but they acknowledge them publicly only rarely and grudgingly. The ill treatment continues, showing that most of such executives are not fit stewards of the public trust.

The most reliable guarantee of our privacy, security, and free speech is not in the form of any enterprise, organization, or government, but instead in the free agreement among free individuals to use common standards and protocols. The vast power wielded by social networks of the early 21st century, putting our digital rights in serious jeopardy, demonstrates that we must engineer new—but old-fashioned—decentralized networks that make such clearly dangerous concentrations of power impossible.

Therefore, we declare our support of the following principles.


Principles of Decentralized Social Networks

  1. We free individuals should be able to publish our data freely, without having to answer to any corporation.
  2. We declare that we legally own our own data; we possess both legal and moral rights to control our own data.
  3. Posts that appear on social networks should be able to be served, like email and blogs, from many independent services that we individually control, rather than from databases that corporations exclusively control or from any central repository.
  4. Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes without extraordinarily good reasons, so also the privacy rights of users must be preserved against criminal, corporate, and governmental monitoring; therefore, for private content, the protocols must support strong, end-to-end encryption and other good privacy practices.
  5. As is the case with the Internet domain name system, lists of available user feeds should be restricted by technical standards and protocols only, never according to user identity or content.
  6. Social media applications should make available data input by the user, at the user’s sole discretion, to be distributed by all other publishers according to common, global standards and protocols, just as are email and blogs, with no publisher being privileged by the network above another. Applications with idiosyncratic standards violate their users’ digital rights.
  7. Accordingly, social media applications should aggregate posts from multiple, independent data sources as determined by the user, and in an order determined by the user’s preferences.
  8. No corporation, or small group of corporations, should control the standards and protocols of decentralized networks, nor should there be a single brand, owner, proprietary software, or Internet location associated with them, as that would constitute centralization.
  9. Users should expect to be able to participate in the new networks, and to enjoy the rights above enumerated, without special technical skills. They should have very easy-to-use control over privacy, both fine- and coarse-grained, with the most private messages encrypted automatically, and using tools for controlling feeds and search results that are easy for non-technical people to use.

We hold that to embrace these principles is to return to the sounder and better practices of the earlier Internet and which were, after all, the foundation for the brilliant rise of the Internet. Anyone who opposes these principles opposes the Internet itself. Thus we pledge to code, design, and participate in newer and better networks that follow these principles, and to eschew the older, controlling, and soon to be outmoded networks.

We, therefore, the undersigned people of the Internet, do solemnly publish and declare that we will do all we can to create decentralized social networks; that as many of us as possible should distribute, discuss, and sign their names to this document; that we endorse the preceding statement of principles of decentralization; that we will judge social media companies by these principles; that we will demonstrate our solidarity to the cause by abandoning abusive networks if necessary; and that we, both users and developers, will advance the cause of a more decentralized Internet.


Please sign if you agree!

You can also sign on Change.org.

 

Signings

0

Goal

0

https://widget.civist.cloud/?api_url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.civist.cloud%2Ft%2F9caa1a6e-1152-4277-b5b4-2bd8cbb855e2%2F#/RW1iZWRkaW5nOmY0OTVkZjBiLTUxMjgtNDk0Mi1hM2UyLThlOTM2MjAyODg4MA==

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing...

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787. Jefferson was the author of the original Declaration of Independence, signed on July 4, 1776.

Monticello (Thomas Jefferson's residence)
Monticello (Thomas Jefferson's residence)
(c) 2019 Larry Sanger


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Social Media Strike!

Short URL for this page: tiny.cc/july45

See also: Declaration of Digital Independence -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources

On July 4 and 5 (at least one day), people with serious grievances against social media—including you?—will go on strike. You could, but obviously don't have to, announce that you are one of the signatories of the Declaration of Digital Independence.

This means we will not use social media on those days, except to post notices that we are on strike. We’re going to make a lot of noise. Nobody will be able to ignore what’s happening. We’re going to flex our collective muscles and demand that giant, manipulative corporations give us back control over our data, privacy, and user experience.

Who: You. The more, the merrier! We’re urging you to go on strike with us. (“We” means nothing more than “all the rest of us who have serious grievances about social media—privacy, free speech, or something else.”)

What: A
collective pause in our use of social media, except to post notices
and memes that:

  1. Declare that we are on strike. Use hashtag #SocialMediaStrike.
  2. (Optional.) Point to a copy of the Declaration of Digital Independence (preferably, your own; see “How” below). Invite others to sign the Declaration.
  3. Urge others to join the strike. Ask your friends, family, and followers to sign and strike.

Hashtag:
#SocialMediaStrike

When:
July 4 and 5. At least one
day. Striking on both days
is likely to be more effective.

Why:
We, the strikers, urge the global developer community to perfect a
new system of decentralized
social media.
This
strike, if
successful,
will raise show
the world—Big Tech corporations, governments, developers, and
social media users—that there is a massive demand for a system in
which

  • Each
    of us individually owns our own data. Each of us individually
    controls it, just as we have control over our email, text messages,
    and blogs. It can be totally private, courtesy
    end-to-end encryption, or totally public; the choice is up to us.
  • Social
    media services stop acting as silos but become interoperable. If we
    make a post on one service, it can appear on another service.
  • Instead,
    social media services compete to create the best user
    experiences
    for a common pool of data.
  • Social
    media services agree
    upon and use a common, universal set of standards and protocols.
    This is how social media should have been developed from the
    beginning, rather than walled off in separate, competing networks.

In
this way, social media would
works the way websites, email, text messages, and blog hosting and
readers work: as neutral service providers.

What
we hope will happen:

  • Your
    followers will start seeing strike notices in their feeds on July 4.
  • Probably,
    most will
    ignore the
    first messages.
    But more and more notices will be appear. Strikers will start
    calling out scabs for posting when they should be striking.
  • With
    luck, by
    sometime on July 4, feeds will be absolutely flooded with strike
    notices.
  • When
    that happens, the
    news media at all levels will have to report on it.
  • Similarly,
    Big
    Social Media will have to issue statements responding to the
    Declaration and to any
    public
    criticisms from many quarters.
  • By
    the end, everyone will have learned how much support there is for
    decentralizing social media, taking the control out of the hands of
    Big Social Media, and returning ownership, control, and privacy to
    the ordinary user.

How:
It
should be fairly simple:

  1. Optional, for those signing the Declaration:
    1. Make your own copy of the Declaration: If you have time, energy, and ability, make your own copy of the Declaration. (It’s Creative Commons so this is 100% OK.) I would love for there to be a million copies of this document floating around. If you agree with everything except a few points, fine: make your own edits to your copy. Note: If you do make your own edits, please list them in a Proposed Changes section. If you copy somebody else’s text, clearly link to the version you’re copying.
    2. Sign the declaration. Please at least sign mine. But sign lots of copies (assuming you agree with their changes); I will.
    3. Encourage others to do the same.
  2. Set up a posting bot, if available. Hopefully, a programmer or several will create bots (browser plugins or apps) you can quickly and easily set up to post notices of the strike, links, memes, etc., for you on the appointed dates. Note: I’m not responsible for anything anyone else creates. Please check out any such service’s privacy policies before using it.
  3. Actually go on strike. Don’t post anything on your Big Social Media accounts on July 4 and/or 5 (preferably both days), except posts of the sort described under “What” above.
  4. Feel free to explore alternatives on those days. Those two days would be excellent days to check out the alternative social media sites of your choice, ones that are committed to privacy, security, and free speech; please give your full attention to sites/apps that support the Declaration.

What coders can
do to help:

Here
are some ideas:

  1. Write
    a strike bot. This would be a browser plugin or app that posts for
    users every hour (say) according to their specifications.
  2. Organize
    and participate in a conversation (I won’t be organizing it
    myself) to get all social media apps using the same standards.
    Critique code, in particular on APIs and implementations of existing
    standards. Help place geek pressure on social networks to adopt
    common standards.
  3. Help
    out with open source social media projects. Lots of them can use
    your help. We need to make them better
    than the Big Social Media offerings. Working together, FOSS
    developers can do it!

What
bloggers/webmasters of all sorts can do to help:

  1. Host your own copy of the
    Declaration.

  2. More
    generally, set up your own websites devoted to the Strike and
    decentralized social media. Host links to resources. Host memes
    and images people can share during the strike on social media.

I
want this effort to be entirely decentralized. I don’t want it to
be centered on larrysanger.org, which
I’m using just because it’s my own site and I don’t want to set
up a new one.
I want it to be decentralized—centerless.
So please, start something similar on your own blog.

More questions? Read the FAQ.

For a deep dive, see the list of resources.


FAQ about the project to decentralize social media

See also: Declaration of Digital Independence -- Social Media Strike! -- FAQ about the project to decentralize social media -- Resources

General questions

What is the Declaration of Digital Independence?

Here it is. It is not meant to be a general bill of digital rights. Rather, it has the very delimited purposes of (1) declaring that we have the digital rights to free speech, privacy, and security, (2) enumerating the ways in which Big Social Media has violated those rights, and (3) articulating some Principles of Decentralized Social Media Networks, which together define the requirements of a better system of social media.

Can you summarize the latter principles?

I'll try. Essentially, social media should be decentralized. Our data should be owned and served by ourselves, just as we own and host our own blogs: it's BYOD, or "Bring Your Own Data." Social media services like Facebook, Twitter, and their smaller alternatives and successors should aggregate the data from many different places, just as blog readers aggregate blogs. In short, they should be fully interoperable not just with each other but with their many smaller competitors.

If you do happen to stick with Facebook or Twitter, your data should be able to be exported to and synced with an independent data repository they don't control. This would take the pressure off of conservative and libertarian calls to regulate the Social Media Giants: they could still censor whomever they like, but unlike at present, your followers would be able to find the unexpurgated versions of your feeds elsewhere, and you'd be able to follow them without joining censorious networks. If you wanted to use a freer social media reader that is plugged into a broader, more neutral, all-encompassing social network, you'd be able to do so.

In addition, social media readers would, to be competitive, have to give users much more control over their feeds and what they're capable of seeing (and what is hidden from them).

Where can I read more about the idea in general?

Aside from the Declaration itself, see this long Wired article I wrote and a blog post (which appeared on TNW) that sort of kicked off this effort.

Is this a new idea?

No, it isn't. People have been discussing how to "decentralize social media" (as I put it) since the 2000s and have proposed social media standards. Another term for it it is distributed social network, although my take might be a little different from older ideas.

What are your goals? What are you trying to achieve?

Ultimately, all I personally am trying to do is to help usher in a new system of decentralized social media and, in general, a newly decentralized Internet. I'm basically a dissatisfied customer. I don't have any project I'm pushing. In my day job I'm working on an encyclopedia project.

In the short run, however, I have much more delimited goals:

  1. Get many signatures on the Declaration of Digital Independence. I want it to go massively viral. I want millions of signatures. I want everyone to become aware of decentralized social media as an option.
  2. Make the social media strike on July 4-5 a roaring success. Create a massive media event that forces the social media giants, as well as the commentariat, to start discussing this seriously. Nothing would do that better than flexing our collective muscle.
  3. Divert traffic to social media alternatives, especially ones that are committed to decentralized social media rather than building yet more silos. They need all the help they can get, and I want to see what they're like at scale.

My medium-term goal is to get all the social media players into one room, at least metaphorically speaking, under tremendous public pressure to adopt common, open, and fair standards so that the various networks become fully interoperable (and thus open to broader competition from smaller players).

What is the biggest problem standing in the way of decentralizing social media?

It's actually a problem that is at once technical and social: we must get all the players on the same page, not just using some open standards or other, but the same standards. You can't have blog readers without all those blogs publishing feeds using the RSS standard (another, lesser-known but common blog standard is Atom).

What reason is there to think that Twitter, for example, would choose to support a more decentralized system? Seems crazy!

Well, that's what I thought too, until I asked Jack Dorsey point-blank:

(1) Once the standards for microposts are properly settled on, will you, Jack, enable Twitter users to incorporate Twitter-style microposts that are hosted elsewhere inline in their Twitter feeds?

Jack answered:

Yes. If we want to serve the public conversation (our purpose) we need to be more expansive than just what’s on Twitter. There’s real work here of course.

I also asked:

(2) Will you create tools to let people export and sync their tweets with microposts from outside of Twitter? [Jack prompted me to clarify "sync" some more.] Since people might want to post using different services but to the same personal micropost feed, a syncing process would have to occur to avoid forking/conflicts. An important part of the request here is that the exporting is done not just via Twitter's API (already in place) but via a standard, like an RSS feed, or even perhaps to a separate data storage (e.g., maybe I'd prefer to serve my own data from my personal cloud).

Jack answered:

I don’t see why not. ... [And in response to the "syncing" clarification.] Ah yes. I can see that.

Finally, I asked:

(3) And will you give users a lot more control over their feeds?

Jack replied:

Yes. We took a tiny step with the switch at the top of the timeline. Realize it’s small. But points to direction.

Much to my surprise, Jack then reached out and we discussed some details of Twitter's plans, which (without giving anything away) sounded excellent to me. He liked my Wired article; the description he used over the phone was "spot-on." So we'll see.

Even Mark Zuckerberg, whom I don't trust as far as I could kick him, paid lip service to neutral technical protocols and touts encryption which he finds "decentralizing," even while he backs away from firm commitment to end-to-end encryption. Because we need to protect your safety, of course. He also pays lip service to "data portability." So who knows?

About me (and my nonexistent organizational motives)

Who are you?

I'm Larry Sanger, currently CIO of Everipedia, the blockchain encyclopedia startup, and in 2001 I co-founded Wikipedia. It was my idea to apply wiki tech to the problem of creating an encyclopedia. I named the project and led it and its predecessor for a couple of years. It wouldn't exist if I hadn't have shown the world how to use wikis to write encyclopedias. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Ohio State (2000) and have spent most of my career after academia starting or advising a variety of other reference and educational websites. I write and speak on a wide variety of themes about the Internet, philosophy, technology, education, etc. I've been steadily online since about 1992 or 93, although I first accessed the Internet via a dialup modem in the early 80s.

Are you trying to start a movement?

No. I am trying to call attention to one that already exists.

But you want to start decentralized social media networks, right? Or what is your angle, or your goal?

I don't want to start a new social media network. (I am not interested in quitting my job. I'm CIO of an encyclopedia network.) I'm also not affiliated with any social media company or project. I'm not angling to be. Finally, I'm not a member of organizations devoted to decentralizing social media; apart from my recent efforts, I don't think I'm particularly well-known to the people who are in such organizations. I'm also not angling to infiltrate or take them over.

But I'm a fan of what they're doing. I want them to be more successful so I can start using their excellent hard work more actively.

I'm deeply upset with Big Social Media, and that is ultimately why I posted the "Declaration of Digital Independence." I'm just a dissatisfied customer with a blog and a modest following.

A few months ago on this blog, I stumbled upon a common and obvious idea, i.e., that we should decentralize social media. I ran with that in a couple speeches and a Wired article, and here I am, executing something like the plan I set out there.

What sort of organization are you starting here?

I'm not starting an organization at all. I have no committee or inner circle (this bit is contrary to plan; I'll explain why I changed this strategy in a bit). It's just me. And you. I want this to be really grass-roots. And if it doesn't take off, too bad—I don't really want to join anything more formal.

Organizations devoted quite explicitly to social media decentralization, data self-ownership, and related causes already exist. I lack the time and energy to work within those organizations. Those who are more professionally and exclusively committed to the cause should seek out those organizations and join them.

Why not work within (or start) an organization?

I find organizations to be limiting. I want to drive forward not an organization but a pre-existing movement. The movement, after all, is to decentralize social media. That means there's no center. Or if there is one kinda-sorta, I'm not that interested in being part of it. I'm a cat who wants to be a cat herder.

But aren't you organizing people who support your effort?

Not really; I don't want that role. I don't have "an effort" beyond cheerleading for something we all seem to want. I have a day job. I hereby disavow any role as the leader of any organization. I just want lots of people to republish the Declaration, or if they don't like it, come up with their own. I just want to persuade developers and investors and nonprofits and yes, maybe even governments if they can not try to take things over, to usher in a new age of decentralized social media. I want to do whatever I can individually to start a grassroots movement to get coders working on, and to get users switching to, any networks that respect the "Principles of Decentralized Social Networks."

Maybe you don't want to call it an organization, but isn't there a lot going on behind the scenes here?

No, not really, not as of this writing, there isn't much that I haven't shared quite openly. I'm not pulling strings anywhere, and nobody is pulling my strings. What you see is what you get. That's how I like best to operate.

So-and-so claims to be part of your organization or to speak on behalf of the Declaration. Is that right?

No it isn't. I don't have an organization, therefore nobody is part of my organization.


Version history for "Declaration of Digital Independence"

1.3 (2019-06-29) Added CC-by-sa license (thought I had done this earlier but apparently not).

1.2 (2019-06-29) Added a quote from Thomas Jefferson, author of the original Declaration, and a picture of his Monticello.

1.12 (2019-06-26) Bolded the words "We, therefore, the undersigned people of the Internet".

1.11 (2019-06-25) In the preamble, to "centralized architecture of the Internet", add "at present"; also, changed "exploitative spirit" to "exploitative animus".

1.1 (2019-06-25) In the catalog of outrages, changed "privacy, security, and free speech" to "free speech, privacy, and security". Moved "They have practiced in-house moderation..." to the first place. Added in the second place this new point: "They have banned, shadow-banned, throttled, and demonetized both users and content based on political considerations, exercising their enormous corporate power to influence elections globally." Added in the third place this new point: "They have adopted algorithms for user feeds that highlight the most controversial content, making civic discussion more emotional and irrational and making it possible for foreign powers to exercise an unmerited influence on elections globally."

1.02 (2019-06-10) At the end of the preamble, expand "But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative spirit guides the centralized networks of the Internet" by appending "and the corporations behind them." This is to clarify the meaning of "they" in the catalog of outrages. This is also why in the next paragraph we add, to "To show what train of abuses we have suffered", the clause "at the hands of these giant corporations".

1.01 (2019-06-09) In "Principles of Decentralized Social Networks" 4, append to "Just as no one has the right to eavesdrop on private conversations in homes" the clause "without extraordinarily good reasons".

1.0 (2019-06-09) First posted version.


Some thoughts on the new Voice.com project

This evening we finally learned what the #B1June hype was all about: among other things, a new social media system called Voice.com, built by Block.one, the company behind the outrageously well-performing EOS token. (Full disclosure: Everipedia, where I am CIO, is built on EOS and is the recipient of a major investment from Block.one.)

The site isn't operational yet, and I couldn't find an app in Apple's App Store, but you can sign up for the beta on Voice.com and view a very interesting-sounding rundown of features.

In their introduction to the project this evening at a very glitzy gala event at the D.C. Armory in Washington, D.C., CEO Brendan Blumer and CTO Dan Larimer said that there were huge problems with existing social media giants. The small changes Big Social Media is likely to make won't solve the root problem: you are the product. As long as the social media giants make their business the collection and sale of data about you, you will lack control over your data and your user experience.

They also find a serious problem in fake accounts. Certainly I wonder how many accounts upvoting my posts on Twitter correspond to at least one person, and some responses one sees there sound mindless and robotic enough to have come from bots.

The fact that Block.one has got that much right makes me optimistic about what will be eventually released.

The coming features they advertise:

  • Voices.com will confirm that every user is a real person. I pressed Block.one engineers for information on how this would work, but they remained mum.
  • The Voice network features a new token, the Voice token (I think it's officially rendered as $VOICE). The only way to create the token is when others upvote your content. There will be no ICO or airdrop. And you can't purchase Voice tokens. That's kind of neat. No word on whether you can cash in your Voice in dollars or EOS somehow. A fair bit is rather vague at this point, to be honest.
  • If you have a message you want to get out, you can spend Voice tokens that you have legitimately earned to boost it, even to the top of a queue (not sure which queue). If others agree that your post is important and upvote it, you can get your Voice back and then some. That's kind of neat.

To my mind, there are as many questions raised as answered here. Anyway, I had two thoughts I wanted to pass on to Block.one and to the Internet void.

First, getting "one person, one account" correct and operational is very important and very hard, and I'll be watching closely to see if they've done it. As I explain in a requirements paper I'm at work on, there are at least four requirements of such a system:

  1. That a person with some essential uniquely identifying information (such as, perhaps, a name, a birthplace, and an email address) actually exists.
  2. That the person thus uniquely identified is actually the owner of a certain account on the network (and thus bears that name, has that birthplace, and owns that email address).
  3. That the person is not in control of some other account. (This is particularly difficult, but it is required if it is one person, one account.)
  4. That the person remains in control (and has not passed on or lost control of the account).

This, or something like it, I want to propose as the gold standard of online identity. I take an interest in this because we need to verify that Everipedia accounts are "one person, one vote" (OPOV) accounts for purposes of voting on encyclopedia articles.

Let's see how many of these requirements the new EOS identity protocol can satisfy.

Second, since Everipedia is built on EOS, I very much hope Voice.com ends up being fully decentralized. The first requirement of a fully decentralized system is to use open, common standards and protocols needed to publish, share, and give all users control over their own social media experience, regardless of which app they use. But I heard nothing about open, common social media standards this evening, and while the Block.one engineers I spoke to this evening did say they were considering adopting some such standards, it didn't sound like that would be part of the upcoming launch. I could be surprised, of course.

Another requirement is that posts from outside of the network should be readable (if a user so desires) inside Voice.com feeds. Otherwise, each social media ecosystem is its own silo—and not decentralized. I'm not sure if Voice.com is working on this.

Actually letting users export their Voice.com data very easily (i.e., with RSS-like feeds) so that their friends outside of the new social network can view their posts on other networks is another crucial requirement the new project will have to tackle, if they want me 100% on board.

Finally, lots of fine-grained control over how the user's feed works will all by itself go a long way to convincing me that a company is serious about letting users take back control. No word yet on whether this is in the works for Voice.com, although I did see a nod in that direction.

I would encourage Block.one to consider adding these features so that I can get behind them in the upcoming push for a Declaration of Digital Independence (about a month away), accompanied by a social media boycott and, eventually, mass alternative social media try-outs.

One last thing. I would like to know whether Voice.com will have an end-to-end encrypted messaging system. This isn't easy for anyone to build, but if you want to go head-to-head with the big boys and demonstrate commitment to privacy, it's a very good idea. Maybe Sense Chat can help, since they're moving to EOS. I am thinking more about the importance of this, being already very convinced of the importance of privacy; in fact, I'm increasingly hardcore about it. (I'll be very curious to read Voice.com's new privacy and community policies. Minds.com just updated theirs, y'know.)

But Block.one does seem to be on board; after all, they gave every attendee a hardware security key, something I was going to buy soon anyway. Thanks, guys!


How to write an app (that respects privacy and supports security)

Some difficult-to-meet requirements

  1. Be open source. Don't make users have to trust your black box. I don't want to have to trust you. I don't know you.
  2. Don't just release your in-house source code. Develop in public; practice outreach to OSS developers to loop in others; make distributed code reviews a standard practice.
  3. Be fully open source. Don't depend on proprietary vendors or use APIs that, for example, make sensitive user data open to systematic collection.
  4. If you must keep some of your server-side code private (it could happen), then hire a third party to do public, independent audits of security and user privacy issues. I don't want to take your word for it. The more often an audit is performed, the better.
  5. Don't use a business model based on selling or datamining user data. Prefer subscription, non-targeted ad, and other non-intrusive models. Maybe tokenize. Prove to your users that this is your business model, and go on the record loud and clear that it is.
  6. Have a clearly-worded privacy policy that (as much as possible) lacks vague language and is highly specific about exactly how user data is used. Make many clear positive assertions about what you do and don't do with user data, in various categories that users might worry about. Include a non-legalese gloss of both the main document and the latest updates.
  7. If you have a cloud app with any data that some users might reasonably want to be kept private (which is almost all cloud apps), store the data using zero-knowledge encryption or other similarly secure tech whenever possible.
  8. When private user data needs to be processed, do it client-side, not server-side, so that you don't need to see the data.
  9. Use strong, standard, end-to-end encryption for all user-to-user communication features.
  10. Obviously, follow best modern practices when it comes to user authentication. E.g., save hashes of user passwords.
  11. If you must make it easier for users to log in by using social media/OAuth logins, then at least give users the clear and prominent option of using their own password for your site. (I strongly advise users to use their own passwords, tracked with a modern, secure password manager. Social media logins are a backdoor for corporate surveillance.)
  12. Conspicuously distinguish between public and private data. Of course, sometimes users don't care about privacy; they want the widest possible exposure for a public post or profile. Just make it really, really clear what information is exposed to whom, and especially whenever anything is not 100% private (and kept that way through encryption).
  13. Support various kinds of two-factor authentication.
  14. Don't keep unnecessary logs of user/visitor data. Never use feckin' Google Analytics!
  15. Make it hard for governments to get user information out of you. The best way to respond to government information requests when you run a private service is with, "We do not have access to that information. It is never sent to or recorded on our servers, or if it is, it is done so in an encrypted format."
  16. Make your mailing lists and notifications opt-in, for the love of all that is holy.
  17. Don't force users to use your proprietary mobile app. Some of us like to use browser versions because we the user have more control and transparency about what the hell is going on.
  18. Speaking of transparency, be totally transparent to OSS devs and regular users alike about how your app works and allay any concerns they might have.
  19. Clarify where your management and developers live and where your offices are located. If we can't find out who you are, how can we trust anything you say about yourselves?
  20. All of the above goes double if you live in a country that is associated with hacking or a highly intrusive or totalitarian government, or if you have any other red flags that might make users worried about their privacy or security when using your app.

I've reviewed and installed a lot of software lately and have designed (if not coded) a lot over the years. As a consumer, this is the ideal I'm after. I'm not sure I know of many consumer web apps that satisfy all of these "requirements." But this is what we need if we want to respect privacy and help users with their security.

I might add more to this list as I think of more things. If you have additions you think I should make, please list them below.


Talk back: Why should we have more restrictions on "harmful" speech on social media?

Dear all,

This is a different sort of blog post.

Rather than me writing yet another essay to you, I want to open the floor to you. I want you to answer something for me. It's like the subreddit "Change My View."

This is aimed specifically at my liberal and progressive friends who are very upset at the social media giants for letting things get so out of hand. See how much of the following applies to you:

You have become increasingly aware of how awful the harassment of women and minorities by the far right has become. You are really, sincerely worried that they have elected Trump, who isn't just a crass clown (many people agree with that) but basically a proto-fascist. You are convinced that Trump must have gotten elected because of the growing popularity of right-wing extremists. They engage in hate speech. Not only is this why Trump was elected, it's why people are constantly at each other's throats today, and why there has been domestic terrorism and mass murder by the right. Therefore, all mature, intelligent observers seem to agree that we need to rein in online hate speech and harmful speech.

I've heard all of this a lot, because I've sought it out in an attempt to understand it—because it freaks me out. Here's the thing: I think it's mostly bullshit. Yes, people (of all political stripes) have gotten nastier, maybe. I didn't vote for Trump and I dislike him. But beyond that, I think the entire line above isn't just annoyingly wrong, it's downright scary. This is largely because I have always greatly valued free speech and this above-summarized mindset has put free speech (and hence other basic liberal democratic/small-r republican values) at risk.

But I'm not going to elaborate my view further now; I mention it only to explain why I want your view first. I'll save an elaboration of my view in a response to you. What I hope you'll do, if you agree with the bold bit above, is to explain your sincere, considered position. Do your best to persuade me. Then, sometime in the next week or two, I'll do my best to persuade you, incorporating all the main points in your replies (assuming I get enough replies).

So please answer: Why should we more aggressively prevent harmful or hate speech, or ban people who engage in such speech, on social media? The "why" is the thing I'm interested in. Don't answer the question, please, if you don't agree with the premise of the question.

Here are some sub-questions you might cover:

  1. Did you used to care more about free speech? What has changed your mind about the relative importance of it?
  2. Do you agree with the claim, "Hate speech is not free speech"? Why?
  3. Exactly where did my "Free Speech Credo" go wrong?
  4. If all you want to say is that "free speech" only restricts government action, and that you don't think corporate actions can constitute censorship, but please also explain any thoughts you have about why it is so important
  5. If you're American and you want Uncle Sam to restrict hate speech, why do you think the law can and should be changed now, after allowing it for so many years? (Surely you don't think Americans are more racist than they were 50 years ago.)
  6. Does it bother you that "hate speech" is very vague and that its application seems to have grown over the years?
  7. If hate speech on the big social media sites bothers you enough to want to get rid of it, what's your stance toward blogs and forums where racists (or people who want to call racists) congregate?
  8. Where should it end, generally speaking? Would you want the National Review banned? Don't just say, "Don't be ridiculous." If that's ridiculous, then where do you draw the line between, for example, banning Paul Joseph Watson from Facebook and using government power to take down a conservative opinion journal?
  9. By the way, do you think it's possible for conservatives and libertarians to be decent people? Honest? Intelligent? Do you think they are all racists? Do you think that articulating all or many conservative or libertarian positions is essentially racist or harmful speech?

Basically, if enough people answer these questions (one or all), I think that'll give me an idea of how your mind actually works as you think this stuff through. This will enable me to craft the most interesting response to you. I want to understand your actual views fully—i.e., not (necessarily) some academic theory, but your real, on-the-ground, down-to-earth views that results in your political stance.


How I got rid of Google calendar

It was about 2013 that my friend Terrence Yang told me I should be using Google Calendar, because everybody was using Google Calendar. So I did. And he was right: almost everyone else was using it, as far as I could tell. There was a period between approximately 2015 and 2017 when I was getting Gcal invites from all sorts of different people. You could just about assume that everyone was, indeed, using Gcal, and were happy to receive Gcal invites. I sent quite a few myself. For several years I was very impressed by the convenience of Gcal. Weren't we all?

But, as it became increasingly clear that Google simply doesn't care about my privacy, I grew less excited about its convenience. The fact that I could easily send an invite to someone else who probably also uses Gcal no longer seems so impressive.

Now, maybe it's just me, but in the last few years, the number of Gcal invites I received has dropped, and this is not been for lack of meetings. People just stopped sending me so many of them; I've frequently had to add meetings to my own calendar. But I found that it wasn't that hard. I had forgotten that it is pretty easy to do it yourself, even if you don't use Siri.

So, when I decided to lock down my cyber-life, I knew one thing I wanted to do was to stop using Gcal. Who really knows what Google does with this data? There were still people who sent me invites occasionally (I actually received one while writing this), but I didn't care about that; I could add the meeting info myself, or maybe make use of the .ics files that come with automatic meeting invitations.

But I couldn't just quit Gcal. It is a cloud-based service that makes it so easy to sync data across my devices; I need my phone and my laptop and my desktop to have all the same calendar data available all the time. But I decided I didn't want that data in the cloud—or rather, not in the public cloud. A few weeks ago, I set up a NAS, i.e., my own private cloud. The NAS vendor makes awesome software, including calendar software. I knew it was only a matter of time before I switched from Gcal, drawing data from Google servers, to Synology Calendar, drawing data from my own private NAS.

Recently, I made the plunge. Here's what I did.

  1. Exported all my data from Gcal. Not hard. The data is exported in the standard .ics format, which any calendar app should be able to use.
  2. Imported my data into Synology Calendar, stored locally on my own machine. The data doesn't make any round trips to Synology servers, by the way. Why would it? It's my own server!
  3. Set up CalDAV on the NAS. CalDAV (an extension of the WebDAV protocol) is a calendar data protocol. So basically what this means is that I enabled the NAS to act as a server for the calendar data, i.e., so it can be edited by all my devices, and maybe most importantly, by my phone. This was maybe the most technically difficult part, but still not hard.
  4. Set up the Apple Calendar app (which doesn't send data to Apple, the privacy hounds on the privacy subreddit assured me; I checked) to get and send data from and to the NAS via the CalDAV protocol. In practical terms, this basically just meant putting in a server address, a username, and a password in the right places on my phone. Easy peasy.
  5. There was one person who depended on the fact that I was using Gcal, who made lots of appointments for me. I knew I was going to have to get her started using the NAS system. So I gave her detailed instructions (this took the longest out of everything), which must have been good because she had everything hooked up in 10 minutes.
  6. We did some testing to ensure that everything worked correctly on all devices, data was syncing, invites and alerts were being sent, etc.
  7. Finally, I deleted all my calendar data from Google servers. Yes, I stuck the knife in and twisted it in the heart of Gcal. So satisfying.

"But," you say, "surely the new system surely can't work as well as Gcal. You sacrifice convenience for privacy. I wouldn't want to do that."

Au contraire, dear reader, it works just as well as Gcal. I have pretty high standards and skills when it comes to software use. I'm quite happy with what I have. For one thing, I haven't switched apps on my iPhone. (I looked for an open source calendar app for the iPhone that supports CalDAV; I couldn't find one.) The data there looks and acts exactly the same as it did before.

Also, the Synology Calendar app for my browser is every bit as fully-functioned as Google's calendar app. Yes, I can have multiple calendars, e.g., one for work and one for personal stuff. Yes, I can make and send invites, and when someone accepts an invitation, my calendar shows that (we checked this out). Yes, optional alert emails are available. Yes, the UX of the Synology Calendar browser app is absolutely fine—no worse than Google's. In some ways, maybe better. Yes, get this, if I want Siri to make appointments for me, it will do so. (Of course, that means sending a sound file to Apple servers with private info about a meeting, which maybe I'd rather not do.)

So, are you jealous? My set-up does everything Gcal does, and it is 100% Google-free and runs on my own machines as well.

I know I'm privileged by having money, time, and technical sophistication to set up my own NAS to do this sort of thing. But you don't have to be rich, and you don't have to be a programmer or system administrator. For a NAS like I have, you just have to spend about as much money as you would on a new desktop, make configuring it your hobby for a while, and be a "power user," which I'm guessing most of the readers of this blog are. Or you know some geek you could impose on, or maybe you could hire someone.

The point is, probably, you, too, could escape the clutches of Google (or at least Google Calendar).

Here are the Google products I once did but no longer depend on: Search, Chrome, Gmail, Docs (for my personal documents; colleagues still use this so I have no choice in their case), Drive, Maps, News, Analytics (yes, I finally removed all traces of Analytics from this blog), Translate, ReCaptcha—and now, Calendar.

My de-Googlification task list now has only two more entries, I reckon:

  1. Delete all my contacts/address book info. I could probably do that right now, but I want to make sure I do it right. Synology has yet another WebDAV tool that enables me to sync my contacts via my browser. I don't want to delete my Google contacts until after I've set that up.
  2. Actually delete my gmail account. (I can do that without deleting my Google account.) I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping me from doing this now, apart from transferring my contact info.

The one Google product that I'm not sure I'll be able to give up is YouTube. My channel has got almost 8000 followers and a lot of kids depend on that content. And I'm thinking of starting an interview series. Besides, insofar as my colleagues expect me to keep using Google Docs, I can't simply delete the account for good. I'm still trying to persuade them to install a NAS.


If you want government censorship through the back door, advocate for social media regulation

Last week, Facebook permanently blocked the accounts of a motley assortment of conservatives, libertarians, and anti-Semites. This set the Internet, especially the free speech loving parts of the Internet, in an uproar. (That would include me.)

It's a trap!

Conservatives, who normally cheer for deregulation, demanded the government start regulating social media. This includes two that Facebook booted. Alex Jones predictably and literally screamed for it (no, really; I looked in on the InfoWars website, which still exists, and there he was, screaming for regulation), while Paul Joseph Watson asked, "When are we going see any kind of sensible kind of regulations or laws to stop this?"

We might see them faster than you'd think. Social media critic and free speech liberal Tim Pool is very enthused about a couple of laws in California and in Texas that would indeed make “social media censorship illegal.” They were introduced earlier this year, February in California and last month in Texas.

So, if you're in favor of free speech, that's a good thing, right? Not so fast.

Among those who have
been calling for regulation of Facebook is someone you might not
expect: Mark Zuckerberg.

No, this isn’t a joke. I’m perfectly serious. I wasn't even surprised by the news when it came out last month. If you know enough about giant corporations and the giant bureaucracies that regulate them, you aren't surprised, either. Last month, I went on at great length explaining why it was a bad idea. (I encourage you to read that piece.)

If you call for a law that “guarantees” that Facebook not ban people for political reasons, your public servants will not stop there, and they might not do that at all. They will inevitably create a new three-letter agency, which we, also inevitably, will soon call words with four letters. Its purview will not be “stop Facebook from banning Republicans for political reasons.” Governments rarely pass legislation aimed at individual corporations, and rarely do they limit themselves to such narrow purposes as "stop banning Republicans for political reasons." No, its purview will, soon enough, be “to regulate Internet content for fairness” or something equally broad.

If you're conservative, think about that being implemented by the state of California. If you're liberal, think how Texas will implement it. Or, if you're from either side, think about the risks inherent in a federal Internet content regulator.

We must not let this horse out of the barn. It would be potentially disastrous.

A federal Internet content regulator (the phrase is chilling) will doubtless be staffed by former “moderation” executives from Facebook and Twitter, as well as academics who specialize in Internet policy (almost 100% left-wing) and lawyers who specialize in Internet law (ditto).

Approximately half of the laws passed for this agency, at the federal level, will be passed by the Democratic Party; in California, 100% of them will be. Surely well over half of the language of any federal regulations will be crafted by Democratic bureaucrats.

Think about all those bright, progressive Internet activists, the ones who call for Facebook to shut down "hate speech" under its ever-expanding definition. Where do you think they will want to go to work, to make a difference in the world?

And Democrats: imagine what damage the agency might do if staffed by Trump appointees. You often complain about Trump's attacks on free speech. Imagine if a Trumpist appointee were responsible for a newly-empowered bureaucracy that picks winners and losers whenever someone complains that somebody else should (or should not) be banned.

Still, don’t be surprised if the Democratic-controlled House passes an “Internet fairness” bill with a half-hearted protest at best. The California bill made it through several votes and readings in committee with no protests at all; and remember, California has a supermajority of Democrats. Some of them might eventually put on a show of resistance, but the votes will not be hard to find. Sure, sure, they’ll say to each other: we’ll make the Internet fair. (Seriously, the Republican who proposed this bill must be an idiot.) The Texas bill got push-back from Democrats—doubtless because they knew they wouldn't be operating the regulatory apparatus—but still passed 18-12. Votes were almost perfectly along party lines. That is very telling: both California Democrats and Texas Republicans are fine with trying to be Facebook's referee, presumably because it empowers them to regulate political speech. And what if they make different calls? Surely the federal government will have to step in.

So suppose a federal measure is passed. Once that horse has left the barn, Democrats will very reasonably suggest sensible, pragmatic regulations that prevent disinformation, fascism, bullying, Russian meddling, and other Bad Things. Who could oppose such eminently reasonable regulations?

After all, if the Republicans pass this law to prevent themselves from being banned, Democrats will expect something in return. What, you thought this body of law will forevermore be stamped “Republican” if Trump signs it? Not likely. That’s not how it works. You must expect the other side to tweak whatever you pass; that’s what happened to Obamacare, to take the most obvious example.

Look, this situation perfectly illustrates why we have an enormous government today. There's a problem; both sides agree that the government oughta do something about it; so laws are passed, and refined, and a body of regulations and agencies to write and enforce them are created, and grown, and funded.

Do you really think that, in the end, our speech will be freer? Take the long view. The chances are basically zero.

You know
I’m right. Don’t be a fool. Think this through.

There’s
another reason to oppose Internet regulations: they require
expert lawyers and engineers on staff to
guarantee compliance. This will substantially increase the difficulty
of making a website, which, having once been possible for kids to
create in their basements or dorm rooms, will be out
of their reach. As with businesses of old, it will be possible to
start one only with substantial capital.

Oh, sure—for a while, the rules might be applied only to websites over a certain size. But you know how it goes: regulatory agencies will expand their scope. The usual suspects will spot “loopholes” in the laws that permit “unregulated and abusive” smaller websites.

"Oh, but that won't happen," you say, "because we're proposing a law that will make free speech stronger!" No. Haven't we learned this yet? Your intentions for a new type of law will not determine the shape of that area of law in the long run. Government takes on a life of its own. The only question we need ask ourselves is: "Do we want to 'go there' at all?"

The answer is no, we don't. You are proposing a law that empowers government drones to supervise censorship by corporations and make it "fair," effectively controlling content, and making it official who may and who may not participate in the public square, and under what circumstances. You know what that sounds like to me? A censor.

This is a terrible idea. It will have precisely the opposite effect to the one you want it to have. That's why Zuckerberg is now encouraging more regulation and was perfectly happy to work with Angela Merkle four years ago, which became the NetzDG law. Regulating social media is precisely what the would-be censors, similar to the German ones, have proposed in the U.K.

Those are the horror stories free speech defenders tell their children. And you are rushing madly in the same direction because you think you can control the government. Well, good luck with that.


A Free Speech Credo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkNSRPDu5ak

I. Free speech is nothing if not offensive.

  1. Free speech just is the right to say offensive things.
  2. Popular, safe speech needs no protection; only unpopular, unsafe speech does.
  3. Free speech needs protection precisely because and to the extent that it bothers, annoys, dismays, infuriates, emotionally wounds—and, yes, offends—other people.
  4. You have the right to offend me, and I have the right to offend you.
  5. I find attacks on free speech deeply offensive.
  6. You have a free speech right to attack the right to free speech.
  7. To oppose free speech is to favor censorship.

II. What free speech is not.

  1. Free speech extends well beyond the First Amendment.
  2. Free speech is a moral right that should be protected by legal rights in all countries on earth.
  3. You do not gain more free speech if you are given a louder megaphone, a larger podium, a bigger audience; but you lose free speech if such things are seized from you by an authority.
  4. It is incoherent to suggest that you win "more" free speech for yourself by silencing your ideological foes.
  5. Free speech never was equivalent to some fair quantity of speech; it was always about whether or not you were being silenced by some authorities.
  6. The appalling ignorance spewed about free speech in the last few decades demonstrates how important it is that we teach philosophy, logic, and especially American civics (or the civics of liberal, open societies) in schools.
  7. Those who do know the issues behind free speech—professors, lawyers, philosophers, historians, journalists—must step up to teach and correct about free speech, or this principle will be lost.
  8. Defending important principles of democracy, like free speech, demands courage.
  9. Citizens of a free republic, perhaps especially intellectual and well-spoken citizens, have a positive obligation to exercise that courage.

III. The politics of free speech.

  1. A generation ago, free speech was not just another liberal cause—it was one of the most essential and defining of liberal causes.
  2. A person who is not a free speech absolutist does not deserve to be called a "liberal."
  3. The Old Censorship that liberals railed against in the 1960s—conservative demands for censorship of both obscenity and far left propaganda—is moribund.
  4. For several decades, until very recently, free speech was a cause that united American liberals and conservatives.
  5. There is a New Censorship on the left as well as, to an extent, the right.
  6. The New Censors are governments eager to rein in hate speech; some Silicon Valley corporate executives and their employees; some university administrators, professors, and student agitators; and those journalists and activists who agitate for more.
  7. The New Censors are dominant in most of the centers of power—they are leaders in today's Establishment.
  8. The New Censorship is, especially in its rapid rise, quite new and genuinely alarming.
  9. The attack on free speech has become so striking and dismaying to some liberals that some have gotten into the business of denying that an attack exists; but this is wishful thinking.
  10. Former defenders of free speech are contemptibly hypocritical or cowardly not to stand against the new censorship.
  11. That goes double for academics.
  12. Academics not willing to give a full-throated defense of free speech on campus betray academic freedom—freedom of inquiry.
  13. Campus speakers who take views offensive to the left now need police protection; some campuses require the speakers to pay protection fees.
  14. Political speeches safely delivered on campus in the past were more shocking and "offensive" than speeches shouted down today—the standards have changed.
  15. Google, YouTube, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Apple, Patreon, and a few others have more real-world power and influence than many U.N. members.
  16. Moral panic about trumped-up charges of bigotry is being used to justify not just censorship, but political censorship—the worst kind.
  17. It is now a well-established fact that the Internet giants are intolerant of certain political speech.
  18. Much of the speech controversially censored by Silicon Valley, campus authorities, and governments has an important political aspect.

IV. Hate speech must be protected despite its offensiveness.

  1. Most people who want to protect hate speech also happen to abhor hate speech.
  2. People want to protect hate speech not because they approve of it, but because they have a much greater horror of censorship.
  3. The New Censors often pretend not to understand the difference between defending free speech and approving hate speech. They deserve to be excoriated on this essential point.
  4. There is no First Amendment exception for "hate speech."
  5. The essential problem about a "hate speech" exception to free speech is that the phrase is irreparably vague.
  6. There are no widely-agreed standards of "hate speech"; there is little agreement on what constitutes "hate speech."
  7. A great deal of what now passes for "hate speech" is, in fact, merely political speech that somebody else hates.
  8. It is morally wrongit is outrageous—to censor political speech.
  9. Sometimes, the "hate" in "hate speech" is most accurately understood as a feeling not of the speaker, but of the person damning the speech.
  10. The best short definition of "hate speech" in this dishonest sense is: speech that enfuriates the Establishment, i.e., our would-be censors.
  11. "Hate speech" used to be restricted to speech clearly motivated by bigotry against race, religion, or sexual orientation.
  12. You must defend, without hesitation, the freedom to utter hate speech—even speech that is outrageously bigoted—or you have abandoned free speech as a civil right.
  13. Until very recently, this was the position of the ACLU and of liberals generally. Many still believe this.
  14. It is absurd to suggest that anyone who defends free speech is ipso facto bigoted, racist, or—ironically—fascist.
  15. The actual fascists of history did a great deal of censorship.
  16. The irony is that censorship, rejection of free speech, and indeed thought control are essential to the totalitarian mindset—an irony lost on certain uneducated and miseducated youth.
  17. We could still return to more enlightened standards of free speech, having realized the enormity of error in this abandonment of principle.
  18. Many well-intentioned social movements, once considered "progressive," have deservedly died out; the New Censorship, like Prohibition and Eugenics, should be one of them.

V. To abandon free speech is to confer arbitrary power.

  1. As people have different values and emotional make-ups, people are capable of hating and being offended by many things.
  2. Historically, people have found different religions, philosophy, cultures, races, research, and even language—even art and music—to be deeply offensive, malevolent, and, yes, hateful.
  3. Permitting censorship based on disagreements overs facts and aesthetics empowers the authorities to determine facts and aesthetics.
  4. Similarly, permitting censorship of political discourse empowers the authorities to determine who wields political power.
  5. Once the authorities gain the power to mold our thoughts, they will not easily give up that power.
  6. Once they gain sufficient power to censor, authorities always grimly impose their values and their vision of reality by force.
  7. The values of the powerful, the elite, the Establishment, are guaranteed to change; they always have; and how often have they been 100% correct?
  8. Therefore, if you are worried about right-wing censorship, you should also be worried about left-wing censorship.

VI. Censorship violates our right to autonomy.

  1. Those who are most eager to take away your right to free speech want to impose their own beliefs on you.
  2. Censors are would-be thought controllers.
  3. If you want to be in control of your own thoughts—your own values, religion, philosophy, aesthetic, etc.—you must support free speech.
  4. Censors are worthy of the deep contempt of the free citizens of an open, truly diverse republic.
  5. No one—absolutely no one—can be trusted to wield the power to determine what millions or billions of people shall believe.
  6. I value the right to think my own thoughts.
  7. The thought controllers are utterly convinced that they know best and that others are wrong.
  8. "Why is there a need to think your own thoughts?" the heretics are told. "The truth is known. If you deny it, you are anathema, a heretic, an enemy of the people, a traitor to the state."
  9. The New Censors insist that their concerns are merely pragmatic, obvious, and eminently reasonable; but that is what most censors have said.
  10. All censorious regimes have in common a furious hatred of the free-thinker, rejection of the individual, hatred of the outsider—the stern demand that we subject our minds to that of a controlling group.
  11. You cannot support censorship without ultimately wanting to impose an entire thought-world.
  12. Indeed, the most passionate new censors today are entirely convinced of their own thoughtworld, indeed they want to impose it on the rest of us, and indeed they have the deepest contempt for those who differ from them, even slightly.
  13. It might be hard for some citizens of an established, old democracy to understand, but thought controllers throughout history have had contempt for the dignity of most people.
  14. Respect for the diversity of individual minds absolutely requires free speech.
  15. This standardizing, collectivizing, controlling impulse is inherently dehumanizing.
  16. We will inevitably lose the habit of thinking and speaking for ourselves, of fearing being ourselves.
  17. Our very dignity rests in our being responsible for our own thoughts.


I hereby license this document under the Creative Commons nc-by-sa 2.0 license. Please feel free to circulate copies, as long as you don't profit from them and you use my name (and note any changes you happen to make, such as additions and deletions).