On censorship


21 days ago by siggi

We are all aware of the discussion going on about Big Tech and their enormous power over our discourse. They censor, direct and manipulate at will, and sometimes even highlight or suppress issues for their partners and friends. Just DuckDuckGo it and you will find many examples of studies supporting this.

A lot of work is being done to try to mitigate this, of which many examples have risen up around crypto currencies. The theory is that if we write something immutably to the blockchain, it cannot be changed or censored. The problem with this theory is that it seems that nobody really cares.

Most everybody, with very few exceptions, that is complaining, publicly or privately, is still using and posting on those Big Tech services. They are enabling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling) Big Tech to continue with ther practices and hindering the actualy change that they find so important. Why is that?

One surprising answer to this dilemma came to me when I asked a friend. “Why are you still using these Big Tech services that can delete your content at will and censor you?” The answer was “Because I want to be able to delete them myself.” It seems that some of us accept being censored, because we want to be able to censor ourselfs. Immutably writing something to the blockchain is too big of a personal risk.

So, this means it is not only the network effect that is hindering adoption of new and innovative social media services, but the fear of being canceled. Of being put outside of the group and not being accepted. Until we can overcome this fear, truly free services that put all the control in the hands of the user, will not thrive.