[stinkbeetle]

> >the old guard of free speech and privacy activists on the internet has long gone, drowned by a sea of unprincipled populist reactionaries

> which is an unnecessary ideological divide if your concern is free speech and privacy;

What do you mean by this, an unnecessary ideological divide?

> too bad the old guard of activists chose sides and alienated additional support for their cause.

What sides did they choose and whose additional support did they alienate?

[watwut]

If the "rightie libertarians" from sibling is correct, then it actually describe the dynamic I have noticed.

It is free speech as long as you are politically right, no matter how far extreme right you are or what you are saying. But, if you are left or oppose the far right, then criticizing those is not free speech, but rather a restriction on it. Suddenly you should shut up, all sorts of additional rules apply to you. It is wrong to argue with far right, to say things that are uncomfortable for them or call them names, call them nazi even when it is clearly the case. But if you are just a little radical feminist, you are valid target for any amount of abuse which suddenly counts as free speech. Your leftist or feminist speech does not count as valid free speech.

Eventually, it started to look like "free speech" is tactically used expression to create an asymmetry and applies only to certain ideas. Or certain people ideas.

[stinkbeetle]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

You're saying some "dynamic" of people you have noticed do not really support free speech in some cases?

Lots of people don't support free speech. My original post bemoaned exactly that.

[watwut]

I am saying that "I support free speech" ended up associated with "I am pro far right, but do not want to openly admit so, but I will gladly accept suppression of left, progressives, liberals and anyone who criticizes right".

And that eventually we realized that "old school free speech groups" just wanted to shut up opposition to far right.

[stinkbeetle]

It ended up associated with the far right, by people on the left who are against free speech I suppose, yes.

> And that eventually we realized that "old school free speech groups" just wanted to shut up opposition to far right.

That's untrue.

[watwut]

It ended up associated with the far right, because poster child for "defending speech" was only and exclusively far right. Really.

It was never "I strongly disagree with an annoying progressive, but I will defend their right to say it". It was always "how dare you criticize far right or call someone far right, you are preventing their speech by opposing them".

> people on the left who are against free speech I suppose, yes.

Funny enough, far right and conservatives were openly against free speech again and again and again. Including in very practical ways. And we see that right now with Trump, Thiel, Musk, Vance and the rest.

People "on the right" nor self styled free speech advocates never minded that. There was never any fascist movement for freedom, the openly stated goal was always to remove the freedom. But if you are not one of them say so and mean it as a criticism, you are somehow supposedly preventing their free speech.

[stinkbeetle]

> It ended up associated with the far right, because poster child for "defending speech" was only and exclusively far right. Really.

It ended up being associated with the far right by far leftists. Really. Go outside internet bubbles and ask normal people on the street. People don't think free speech is "far right". Really.

> It was never "I strongly disagree with an annoying progressive, but I will defend their right to say it". It was always "how dare you criticize far right or call someone far right, you are preventing their speech by opposing them".

I've heard that a lot, so that's false.

> Funny enough, far right and conservatives were openly against free speech again and again and again. Including in very practical ways. And we see that right now with Trump, Thiel, Musk, Vance and the rest.

I'm not seeing where the humor is.

> People "on the right" nor self styled free speech advocates never minded that.

Also wrong, many free speech advocates have greatly minded conservative efforts to censor speech in the past.

> There was never any fascist movement for freedom,

No, but that appears to be a strawman of your own construction by equating free speech advocates with fascists.

[throwaway290]

I guess "The old guard of free speech" went to be rightie libertarians

[stinkbeetle]

As a group, those who bang the free speech and privacy drum be seen as being more to the right than 20 years ago, but I doubt it is significantly because individuals changed their other political opinions. More because some of the group dropped out as they have been silenced by fear or just changed their outlook on it as political landscape has changed. Also in some part because those remaining in the group are just viewed as being more to one side of the political spectrum than they used to be simply because of this view.

[fsckboy]

I parsed this entirety as a single noun cluster: "the old guard of free speech and privacy activists on the internet"

and to me that can be summed up as "the EFF", and the EFF is decidedly left whinge, and does not attract the support of others who are concerned about free speech.

free speech on the pre-web internet didn't really need a group, it was a given and generally accepted by all parties

[stinkbeetle]

But in that case, the EFF didn't go to be rightie libertarians. They if anything may have gone further left, it's just that they no longer champion free speech. Which is basically what I said, just applied to the group rather than individuals.