> > If the rules of the discursive process are sufficiently > > well defined, then everyone is inhibited from causing > > damage or bring forward opinions that aren't compatible > > with previous fundamental decisions such as human rights > > etc. To ensure that rules are respected you need > > moderators and to ensure that moderators aren't abusing > > their powers you need judges. That's what it takes to > > really have online democracy - simplifications may fail.
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:08:32PM -0500, Richard Brooks wrote: > You are begging the question. Who makes those rules? > If it is the majority, then 50 years ago gay speech > (let alone transgender) would have been suppressed. > How do you deal with the tyranny of the majority? Majority is a word I learned to dislike in recent years. I like consensus. Not a perfect consensus, because that is too hard to achieve, but something like a 80 or 90% consensus. I am bumping into entire political groupings that are trying out such a path of consensus to avoid all the failures of majority decision-making, so it seems to be part of a general philosophical development of the new digital human society. Also, there are methods that give space to minorities without at the same time giving them the power to dominate all discourse. Consider that our current political system is dominated by minorities that can pay for lobbyism etc. So the method it takes must be well balanced, to ensure the *rights* of minorities without becoming unjust. > And the hecklers veto? Are pro-nazi statements > permitted (in the US, yes. In Germany with a > constitution written in large part by the US, > no.) In the US it is legal to make pro-nazi statements in your home or pub, but that doesn't mean that it is permitted to do so within an assocation of people that have agreed on stricter rules, like the respect of human and civil rights. Therefore, if the group first establishes that statements disrespectful of others aren't permissible, such statements would not get published on the platform. Actors who tend to employ offensive rhethorical methods would have to learn to refrain themselves, which in my experience works suprisingly fast. The best way not to have any unpleasant exchange with moderators is to respect the rules. Should the moderators however be in error, blocking a statement that doesn't actually infringe prior agreed rules, then there must be a way to appeal to a higher court. The net needs to learn to practice checks and balances in everyday online discourse, I think - because automated or collective justice systems do not actually produce justice. So, does that sound like a plan? -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at zakwh...@stanford.edu.
