[drusepth]

>What is fundamentally different with Pepe is moderation. Instead of relying on a centralized entity with a banhammer, each board and thread owner may anonymously moderate their spaces on their own. However, nothing can actually be deleted, it can only be shadowed, and each user decides whether they want to see the light or the full version of the page at any moment in time. People can still reply to shadowed posts inside their own shadowed posts, so no one cannot silence anyone, only maintain order on the light side.

[hexadec]

This begs the question, which is the default: light or full. You cannot claim to support freedom of speech and have this capacity in my opinion. It is implicitly saying some voices are less valid.

It is an interesting project technically, but I do not think it will replace the *chan model for edgy people to be edgy on the internet. If your opinions are so extreme that you feel that you must be anonymous and free from repercussions, they may be terrible opinions in the eyes of society.

[loceng]

I think the issue, if there ever becomes a protocol allowing for full freedom of speech, is that of time-resource management: if you know a certain user just isn't responsive or open to listening to reason - closed heart, closed mind - blind in rage like the boar demons in Princess Mononoke. I believe there needs to be a system to tag such individuals and then some sort of intervention in-person - we're not going to work through people's anger and build trust, relationship, with them online. I think that also then requires developing a culture - so "sheep" following the new status quo - of a protocol to help people develop their self-awareness - to gain and maintain their health, which in part is to heal past trauma that closed off their heart and mind, blocking their critical thinking and empathy development.

[aldonius]

So you're claiming that freedom of speech creates an obligation to listen?

[hexadec]

No, freedom of speech is about the government censoring your ability of speech. You are free to stand on a street corner and yell to the world but it does not require anyone to listen to you.

This person is advocating for a non-governmental website that is for enabling free speech since they see some voices as being silenced. But with that comes the ability for people you disagree with the speak as well. No government censored Parler, it was people who disagreed. What if this new service is overrun with people who disagree, will it be swept away in shadow posts or will people who say disagreeable things actually see that.

[loceng]

Inevitably I think bad or bad faith actors, the kind who were on Parler or in /r/Conservative that ban people with a counter-narrative will simply not use the platforms where they can't have full control to completely silence anyone they please.

It's why I'm fairly certain giving bad actors "free" access to the best technology is nonsense, you wouldn't give enemies your plans to your latest technological advances in weaponry - and the same goes now for the digital age.

The deplatforming done recently of Trump et al by multiple technology layers of private owned companies, was good overall to at least slow down their rallying and organization. Yes, it possibly inflamed some - but they quickly learned if you don't behave within the bounds of what's considered civilized behaviour that allows society to thrive and that these free companies of people, organized people, understand and have a solid foundation that they're holding the line for; contrast this to countries where there's a tyranny as a government that has their hands in all important companies to understand the importance of the ability for private companies to have this power to decide as a failsafe against government becoming a tyranny.