Source item

Free speech is open borders for ideology. (1) One way of thinking about the last ten years is that the American left busted the physical borders of the right, while the right smashed through the digital borders of the left. (2) Because the left relied on mind control, on controlling the discourse. And the busting of those digital borders by the Internet is what hurt them the most. They wanted stern penalties for crossing the line, for saying the wrong thing. So then the left tried to re-impose speech controls, but lost control. Will the right succeed in re-imposing border controls? We will see. (3) Btw, of course I am aware that these are different, and you can argue for the merits of both digital and physical borders, or neither. But if you argue for only one you may soon need to impose the other. (4) That is: if you open the physical borders you will be letting in people with new ideas, which will bust the digital borders you had around thoughts. (5) Conversely, if you open the digital borders with free speech, there will be many who push for more permissive migration, which may eventually bust the physical borders. Hence, totally free speech may inadvertently lead to open borders. (6) Let’s call the case with two borders “Chinese Control”, where there’s both a Great Firewall and a Great Wall. Here there is a strict and unmistakable combination of a digital and physical border. All speech is not allowed and all people are not allowed. (7) Conversely, let’s call the case with no borders “American Anarchy”. Here, there are no digital or physical borders at all. It’s just a North American continent where everyone is completely free to post online and move offline. Note that this ostensible freedom may look more like anarchy, hence the name. (8) My view is that we’re going to need an Internet Intermediate, which is neither coercive Chinese Control nor chaotic American Anarchy. In that third form, you create startup societies with both digital and physical borders…but all residents freely opt in to those constraints, and can opt out at any time. (9) In general, it’s obvious that open borders means invasion. It’s a little less obvious, but free speech in the age of the Internet means *ideological* invasion. That is why most practical forums (from Slacks to Discords) have moderators and moderation policies and banhammers. (10) Anyway. Thinking about the last ten years as mutual border busting by left and right is an interesting lens. That’s why they are both so heated. I may be more sympathetic to one side, but it’s always useful to understand both.