[sellyme]

You're confusing a protocol (email) with a platform (e.g., Twitter).

You can still pretty easily "opt in" to receiving their communications. You just can't force someone else to be the middleman. If they set up their own blog or forum you're completely free to visit that.

This is similar to how you can't force [e-mail] to forward you your friend's messages, but your friend can send them to you from their own personal email.

The locus of agency is on your friend to put in the effort themselves if they can't find anyone willing to help them spread their speech.

[programmarchy]

Doesn’t it boil down to the same problem, though?

Maybe [e-mail] says something Google doesn’t like so gets blocked from sending to gmail.com or any other email server hosted by Google, which is a huge swath of people similar in scale to the YouTube audience.

Through either the accumulation of capital (e.g. computational power) or consolidation of political power, central authorities can police traffic to censor information on a massive scale, even on decentralized protocols like email.

So yes, at that point, you could argue that the locus of agency falls on Bob to start his own tech empire or whatever, but that becomes absurd. We’ve already seen censorship at the infrastructure level and even the domain registrar level, which is extreme.

There’s always a middle man on the Internet, or any peer to peer system with more than two edges for that matter. The problem arises when that middle man grows into a giant leviathan hell bent on manipulating the conversation of parties between itself.

[sellyme]

> Maybe [e-mail] says something Google doesn’t like so gets blocked from sending to gmail.com or any other email server hosted by Google, which is a huge swath of people similar in scale to the YouTube audience.

If these people continue to use Gmail rather than more open alternatives, does that not indicate that they don't want to hear what Bob has to say?

> We’ve already seen censorship at the infrastructure level and even the domain registrar level, which is extreme.

There is absolutely zero good-faith use of the internet that can result in you getting irreversibly banned by a significant number of domain registrars, therefore this example is completely unrelated to the original quote (replicated below for convenience):

> it is better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.”

There is a lot of validity to the quote. I largely agree with it. But the second part is important - it cannot be interpreted as "we better make it illegal for Twitter to ban people calling for genocide".

[programmarchy]

> There is absolutely zero good-faith use of the internet that can result in you getting irreversibly banned by a significant number of domain registrars, therefore this example is completely unrelated to the original quote

How is it unrelated? A noxious branch is exactly something that many or most people would consider abhorrent and perceive as not in good faith.

There will always be some moral veil put forth by censors to justify their actions. A good example is banning discussion on Ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. Some consider that a noxious branch — quackery endangering public health — but if it’s immediately pruned we won’t be able to see if it yields proper fruits.

[sellyme]

> How is it unrelated? A noxious branch is exactly something that many or most people would consider abhorrent and perceive as not in good faith.

Because that quote fundamentally discusses cases where pruning said noxious branch is a risk to non-noxious branches.

Sometimes you can just prune a noxious branch and that's that.

[programmarchy]

It sounds like you’re misreading the quote. He is not saying noxious branches should be pruned to protect non-noxious ones. He’s saying do not prune them, instead let them fight it out and see which one bears the best fruit.

This quote is from the The Report of 1800 [1], where he goes on to say:

> Had “Sedition acts,” forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press; might not the United States have been languishing at this day, under the infirmities of a sickly confederation? Might they not possibly be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?

He’s crediting the formation of the United States to speech that was “noxious” to either the British parliament or the Confederate states in power at the time. This noxious speech was absolutely a risk to the extent that sedition acts were being threatened. He’s advocating freedom of the press even when their speech may excite hatred.

[1] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-020...