I wish to draw attention once again to Drew DeVault. He stopped writing for a short while, but has resumed. Here's
the article of note (
archive). I've tried to reduce the amount of direct quotes I've made here.
Recently, CloudFlare pulled the plug on a certain forum devoted to the coordinated harassment of its victims.
Gee, I wonder which forum that could be.
He first mentions freedom of association, and never touches on how refusing to do business with certain races is also included in that freedom, and absent from the US for nearly a century.
An argument is often made that, when a platform reaches a given size (e.g. Facebook), or takes on certain ambitions (e.g. CloudFlare), it may become large and entrenched enough in our society that it should self-impose a role more analogous to a public utility than a private company. Under such constraints, such a platform would choose to host any content which is not explicitly illegal, and defer questions over what content is appropriate to the democratic process. There are a number of angles from which we can examine this argument.
Guess which angle he chooses.
Consider one option: regulation.
Similarly, we could regulate digital platforms to require them to provide a soapbox for all legally expressible viewpoints, then utilize the democratic process to narrow this soapbox per society’s mutually-agreed-upon views regarding matters such as neo-Nazi propaganda.
This seems like he's advocating for making certain opinions illegal, so long as it's done democratically.
He then argues that perhaps businesses shouldn't be allowed to grow so large, and mentions the invisible hand of the market. This isn't an unreasonable position, but we know the market's invisible hand certainly likes to masturbate and, say, agree on a list of innocent people to ban from the financial system.
The tools for implementing this worldview, however, introduce further contradictions when combined with the broader political profile of a typical free speech absolutist: calling for regulation isn’t very consistent with any “small government” philosophy; and those who describe themselves as Libertarian and make either of these arguments provide me with no small amount of amusement.
Bringing plutocrats to heel is perfectly possible with a small government. A small government merely has a small base of laws, and isn't necessarily some capitalist government. Libertarians are dipshits.
The democratic and judicial processes are often corrupt and inefficient. It is still the case that the tone of your skin has an outsized effect on the outcome of your court case; why shouldn’t similar patterns emerge when de-platformed racists are given their day before a judge?
We should also question if the democratic process will lead to moral outcomes. Minorities are, by definition, in the minority, and a purely democratic process will only favor their needs subject to the will of the majority. Should the rights of trans people to live free of harassment be subject to the pleasure of the cisgendered majority?
Heckin' democracy isn't good enough, apparently, because it may lead to the wrong outcomes.
I expect the people around me (given a definition of “around me” that extends to the staff at businesses I patronize) to possess a moral compass which is compatible with my own, and to act in accordance with it; in the absence of this I will express my discontent by voting with my feet.
What a fucking asshole. Damn does this remind me of something phrased well by
@Rich Evans Ayypologist recently:
Everything you consume MUST be top to bottom moral, just, righteous - and if it isn't, you have to throw a hissyfit. Moral consumption allows you to say "you're supporting the good guys" just by buying a fucking video game. You harass people on the internet who break the mold, and this is how you rationalize to yourself that you are not just a neutral influence on the world, but a positive one despite the fact that all you fucking do is consume product.
Read his entire message, as this is but a short fragment thereof.
The democratic or judicial processes are an enticing and idealistic answer, but these are flawed processes that may not produce just outcomes.
Oh no, the people may not hold the correct opinions. The democratic option isn't enough until that little issue changes.
Nevertheless, the system as it exists today produces outcomes which approximate both rationality and justice, and I do not stand in opposition to the increased application of private censorship under the current system, flawed though it may be.
Oh, well it's great to know he thought about it long and hard, and decided he agreed with those in power, on principle of course. Some people would, say, love to see this stupid opinion bite him and his ilk in the ass once enough people decide that trannies should go back into mental asylums where they belong, among other things, but I suppose we'll see what happens.
He should stick to designing shitty C language knockoffs instead of voicing his mainstream political opinions.