I don't know what you consider to be an inalienable right, but consider, for example, freedom of speech (the same will transfer to most other rights).
You have the right to express yourself freely.
If I were to, for instance, attack you for what you say, that would infringe this right of yours.
This does not, on its own, mean I have to help you do so. It does not mean I owe you anything. It does not even mean I can't censor you on my own server (in the case of online speech).
In order to effectively exercise freedom of speech, some things are necessary and others are quite useful. Having a pen, having a computer, having certain resources will help you.
If you don't have a pen and are unable to get one, none is infringing upon your right to free speech, but it's effectively limited by the fact that you don't have a pen.
If the main system that people use to express themselves online is trough social media platforms, and they don't have another system for public self expression, their freedom of speech is effectively limited, not because anyone is infringing it, but because they lack a way to exercise it.
Some platforms, such as Minds, are "free speech platforms". This is not to say they don't infringe upon your rights. Facebook and Twitters don't either. Rather, it is to say that they are a tool suitable for freedom of expression.
It's important to build such tools, digital and not, and make them widely available, to maximize freedom of expression. It's not morally mandatory to do so, but it makes the world a better place.
Mainstream social media platforms could, if their owners wanted it, be tools aimed at maximizing effective access to the exercise of certain rights. They are not, in practice, because their owners don't want it. This is ok. It's important, however, that we don't treat them as what they aren't and that we build systems that actually are aimed at maximizing effective access to the exercise of those rights.
It's not really a defense, since there isn't really an attack. Rather, it's avoiding a stupid mistake, that would subjugate one's right to the whim of certain companies, and building things that can help to maximize human rights, not because we have to, but because we can.
Aspie96 / Valentino Giudice
npub13mj…8hs2
2024-05-04 18:40:19
in reply to nevent1q…kd8t
Author Public Key
npub13mjzjryckg9jnxgn3vez73nw5gx82cy0269t2083zjftlxewsjwqny8hs2Published at
2024-05-04 18:40:19Event JSON
{
"id": "0b618b02320fb31422ed5de8665da89faa0c3a01ff5114cce2eb7461d4bf4221",
"pubkey": "8ee4290c98b20b2999138b322f466ea20c75608f568ab53cf11492bf9b2e849c",
"created_at": 1714840819,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"42f65147ebc7c2be0488f61cbb73011c40f1f3eadfdfb702aa57aa40fb6a5d0c",
"wss://nostr.mom/",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"42f65147ebc7c2be0488f61cbb73011c40f1f3eadfdfb702aa57aa40fb6a5d0c",
"wss://nostr.mom/",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7d4417d5df435a97b8f55c8f2e7e2ef533e2371ce5e1cffd595c179a3eaf36d4",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "I don't know what you consider to be an inalienable right, but consider, for example, freedom of speech (the same will transfer to most other rights).\n\nYou have the right to express yourself freely.\nIf I were to, for instance, attack you for what you say, that would infringe this right of yours.\nThis does not, on its own, mean I have to help you do so. It does not mean I owe you anything. It does not even mean I can't censor you on my own server (in the case of online speech).\n\nIn order to effectively exercise freedom of speech, some things are necessary and others are quite useful. Having a pen, having a computer, having certain resources will help you.\nIf you don't have a pen and are unable to get one, none is infringing upon your right to free speech, but it's effectively limited by the fact that you don't have a pen.\n\nIf the main system that people use to express themselves online is trough social media platforms, and they don't have another system for public self expression, their freedom of speech is effectively limited, not because anyone is infringing it, but because they lack a way to exercise it.\nSome platforms, such as Minds, are \"free speech platforms\". This is not to say they don't infringe upon your rights. Facebook and Twitters don't either. Rather, it is to say that they are a tool suitable for freedom of expression.\n\nIt's important to build such tools, digital and not, and make them widely available, to maximize freedom of expression. It's not morally mandatory to do so, but it makes the world a better place.\n\nMainstream social media platforms could, if their owners wanted it, be tools aimed at maximizing effective access to the exercise of certain rights. They are not, in practice, because their owners don't want it. This is ok. It's important, however, that we don't treat them as what they aren't and that we build systems that actually are aimed at maximizing effective access to the exercise of those rights.\n\nIt's not really a defense, since there isn't really an attack. Rather, it's avoiding a stupid mistake, that would subjugate one's right to the whim of certain companies, and building things that can help to maximize human rights, not because we have to, but because we can.",
"sig": "125336d462639b2704851fcb97b37a77b29816d0862fb73f796335912b04f6ccd3d3ec8f1fe539e7dcc7250de95650ef7db28fa883fb2690a657770248bb6607"
}