>Only the original author may remove content they produce
So if someone puts a bounty on his head next to his whereabouts in this social medium only the author should have the possibility to remove it?
So if someone puts a bounty on his head next to his whereabouts in this social medium only the author should have the possibility to remove it?
There's a certain techno-utopianism libertarian view that says "absolutely, anybody should be able to say anything". And then there's a totalitarian authoritarian view that says "nobody should be able to post anything unless the Government authorises it".
Most people exist somewhere in the middle, recognising there is a lot of nuance. It's impossible to draw a clear, consistent boundary. So instead we depend on human intervention, and often the humans get it wrong - but it's the best we have.
Back then your free speech had limted reach, nowadays the reach is globally.
Scratch beneath the surface and it's usually BS. "Free speech" in tech seems to mostly be about who gets to be the gatekeeper, rather than removing gatekeepers altogether.
We all know of millions of people trying out many apps in trying to escape their own living hell of “totalitarian authoritarians” and their gatekeepers, but I distress.
So, it may be bovine excrement to you, but it is a divining principle in libertarians’ reflection of the current extreme views and probably should be a viable “canary-in-the-coalmine” test.
“If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.” - Voltaire
(I'm referring, e.g. on the call to kill Rushdie)