Free Speech Has No Alternative

About four days ago, @joshman posted about incrementalism and I really find it fascinating that I shared it on Twitter. If you haven't read about it yet, you can find it here:

Freewrite: Incrementalism, Gradualism, And Their Self-Application

I wondered why dictatorship or any totalitarian rule still exists today. It came to me that maybe, just maybe, governments started as benevolent overseer, but gradually extends its control over its people until it totally became an overpowered entity that checks and balances no longer exist. The thing is, power seeks more of itself (I must have read that somewhere).

The reason why I included the concept of incrementalism is because I think free speech or freedom of expression is the very first fundamental human right that gets affected when governments try to expand their control. The concept can even be extended to any central authority; not just to traditional governments.

Free speech is constantly under attack. Just a quick browse on the news section of the internet will tell you more. This is because it's the first line of defense against tyranny. We all know what happened to those who showed dissent in the past, central authorities wanted them silent.

In application to Web 2.0, conventional platforms have this Terms and Conditions. From a normal netizen's perspective, there should be no clause in the Terms and Conditions that would violate the fundamental human right of free speech. The thing with platforms with central governing body is that it can edit or add a clause anytime they feel like it. In the first place, no one (except a few nerds) would read the whole Terms and Conditions before signing up.

We all wanted to heard with whatever our opinion is. The introduction of social media made us more empowered to voice out our perspective, to whatever issue, that is at par with anyone. With social media, not just those who are rich and famous are entitled to say whatever they want to say. Ordinary people like me can say whatever we want to say as long as it is bounded by the Terms and Conditions the platform adopts.

In an attempt to keep the control to the central authority, here comes shadowbanning, censorship, and total removal of content from the platform. Anything that they see as a threat to their control and existence would be removed entirely. Example is the complete removal of some crypto contents in Youtube. They see blockchains and decentralization as a threat to their central authority that they don't want people to be informed.

That would be devastating to those content creators who devoted most of their life and work to expand their reach and amass followers to their page. Removal of content that you worked hard to produce is not justifiable in the eyes of those who produced it.

In the end, the argument of those conventional platforms is that if you don't like it, then you can leave anytime.

Here comes Web 3.0. Is that even a thing? Are we there yet? I'm not yet sure about that, but putting your content in blockchain-based platforms is the closest thing to Web 3.0. Just be careful though, some platforms claim to be decentralized, but is totally controlled by a central authority. Take of what happened to Steem. Steem is still claimed to be a decentralized platform, but in reality, it is now controlled by Justin Sun and his sockpuppet witnesses.

I tweeted this the other day:

All great stories started with a resistance to central authority.

Seems like what happened to Steem when Justin Sun came to the equation and the subsequent creation of Hive. Now we are talking about a platform that's closest to Web 3.0.

I don't want to get political, but there are things that should be taken personally. When we are talking about fundamental human rights, there should have been no sell-outs. There should be no neutral stance. There should be no exceptions. Everyone should fight for everyone's right and that's including those who don't share the same opinion with you. When we are talking about human rights, neutrality after all, sides with the oppressor.

The sad part is that there are people who takes freedom of expression so lightly. There are those who don't care maybe because they have the privilege to do so.

For me, free speech should be non-negotiable and it has no alternative. There's a reason why it was included as one of the fundamental human rights, as recognized under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). As defined:

Free speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

Let the people speak. That should be basic. That should not be subject to doubt.

Airing out grievances and dissent against a central authority should not be taken as a threat by that central authority, unless they have something to hide. It should be taken as a constructive criticism and a point of improvement.

Another great read from @joshman is an article where he likened blockchain-based platforms as virtual countries. I agree with that the same observation because the behavior of the community points in that direction. If that is the case, then the community (the citizens of those virtual states) should always be vigilant against an attack to its basic rights. The case of Justin Sun's hostile takeover would be a good educational material for future reference.

I wouldn't argue with anyone who will say that Steem (before) and even Hive are not truly decentralized. That's true, but Hive is the closest to decentralization as far a governance is concerned. Checks and balances worked out fine and the voice of the community reigns supreme. Those who will say that the Top 20 witnesses are the ones ruling over the community is just scratching the surface. I would say that having a 20 consensus witnesses is better than having an egotistical dictator who never even tried to understand the community. Besides, actions of those Top 20 witnesses are immutably recorded in the blockchain so any kind of corruption will be revealed sooner or later.

This is what I like about the DPOS mechanism. The community holds those in power accountable and transparency is of the highest regard. You can't lie because everything is recorded and can be used against you. That's what any governing body should be: to be accountable to their actions. And I think every central authority in that regard at some point. When they are not accountable to their actions, everything will become a slippery slope from there.

Again, free speech has no alternative, but that's only half of the story.

The other half is that whatever's given as freedom should have an equivalent responsibility. That's where the constant tug-of-war and continual balance should be achieved. On how to achieve that balance, that's subject to interpretations of the law.

There should be limitations to a given freedom or else, there will be chaos. Freedom of speech should be bounded by the justifications under the harm principle which suggests that the actions of any member of a civilized community should only be limited to prevent harm to other members. You can look for yourself the examples of such limitation.

_{Note: All images and designs are from Canva and are free to use.}

Kim Ybañez

_{Welcome to Kim's small corner in Hive. He is a chemical engineer by profession, but a blogger by passion. He is a wanderlust and an adventure seeker. Join his quests as he visits secluded destinations, climbs mountains, tries new and exotic dishes, and explores his country (The Philippines) and the rest of the world even if he's still a poor corporate slave with tons of bills to pay and two siblings to support in college.}

_{If you like his content, don't forget to upvote and leave a comment to show some love. You can also resteem if you want to. Also, don't forget to follow him to be updated with his latest posts.}