Where are the principles we defended? (Opinion)

Where were the principles

Pablinux, David Naranjo and I don't know each other. We have different ages, we live in different countries and, Except for using Linux, we probably don't have much in common.

Without agreeing, the three of us decided to write about topics related to the social media decision to ban Donald Trump and some of his supporters.David chose to explain the events without adding comment. Pablinux made a reluctant recommendation for a tool to bypass censorship, and I came out with the cap on the increasing politicization of the Mozilla Foundation.

Except for a slap on the wrist from a reader who accuses him of historical inaccuracy, David did not generate major controversies. The worst part was carried by Pablinux. Several readers complained to him for not clarifying the ideological origin of the creator and one affirmed that the problem was how it was going to be used.

It was not so bad for me. (At least they didn't accuse me of having a bad head like in Menéame) They treated me as a misogynist, macho and a Vox sympathizer (My biography clearly says that I live in Argentina) Another reader stated that censorship is a matter of degree.

More things about me than they wanted to know

Unlike many of our readers, I lived in a dictatorship. The one that ruled Argentina between 1976 and 1983. I don't have any acquaintances who have been disappeared, but, among the memories of my early childhood is that of my mother taking books out of the library and giving them to my father to burn while warning my brother and me not to say anything.

Year later came the Malvinas War chen we went from hearing in all the media that we were winning to the news of the surrender.

In 1984 Buenos Aires held the first International Book Fair in democracy. The photo of all the newspapers was the electronic catalog where it was shown in which places to buy Marx's books.

Ah, the censors weren't just bothered by books and movies. In one province the teaching of Modern Mathematics was prohibited. It seems that Set Theory was subversive.

All those years of books that were not read, opinions that were not debated and things that were not learned are largely to blame for the current decline of the Argentine leadership and as a consequence that of the country. So Sorry if I am not convinced about good censorship and bad censorship.

Where were the principles that we defended?

Putting aside my (I admit) nothing impressive autobiography. The banning of Trump and the elimination of the competition that tried to accommodate it creates dangerous precedents.

What if Biden doesn't give Amazon back the Pentagon contract that Trump took from him? What if Twitter shareholders tired of not making a profit sell it to Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and the ban in the opposite direction begins?

On the subject at hand was issued the Electronic Frontier Foundation. As everyone knows, it has an equestrian statue of Santiago Abascal at its headquarters.

Like most people in the United States and around the world, the EFF is shocked and disgusted by Wednesday's violent attack on the United States Capitol. We support all who work to defend the Constitution and the rule of law, and we are grateful for the service of politicians, staff and other workers. who endured many hours of confinement and met to fulfill their constitutional duties.

The decision by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and / or block President Trump's communications through their platforms is a simple exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to commissary their sites. We support those rights. However, we are always concerned when platforms take on the role of censors., so we continue to ask you to apply a human rights framework to those decisions. We also observe that Those same platforms have chosen, for years, to privilege some speakers - particularly government officials - over others., not only in the United States, but also in other countries. A platform should not apply a set of rules to the majority of its users, and then apply a more permissive set of rules to politicians and world leaders who are already immensely powerful.. Conversely, they should be just as judicious when it comes to removing content from ordinary users as they have been to date with respect to heads of state. Going forward, we ask platforms once again to be more transparent and consistent in the way they apply their rules, and We ask policy makers to find ways to encourage competition so that users have plenty of editorial and policy options to choose from.

That is the spirit in which I suggest alternatives and oppose censorship. The original 4 freedoms of Free Software at no time establish ideological restrictions.  A program is a tool that, like a hammer, is neither good nor bad. It is those who use it who determine it.

I end up with another date. A poem by Martin Niemöller very popular at the time of the return to democracy in Argentina.

First they came looking for the communists and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't say anything because I was not a trade unionist.
Later they came for the Catholics and I didn't say anything because I was a Protestant.
In the end they came for me but, by then, there was no one left to say anything.


The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

41 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: AB Internet Networks 2008 SL
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Someone said

    I do not usually write comments on this blog or on any other - I am very lazy - but this time it seemed imperative to do so to give my support to the editors of Linuxadictos.

    We are in a time when social ideology - especially on the internet - has degenerated to such an extent that telling certain truths has almost become an act of courage.

    I suppose that, as always happens, there are many of us who are satisfied reading a medium like this one, which is serious enough to, on the one hand, narrate objective facts while maintaining impartiality and, on the other, - when it comes to - present points of view and opinions based on real data and sources *. However (and unfortunately), those who seek to criticize without foundation and denigrate those who believe that they do not think like them always have more impetus when it comes to attacking cruelly than the rest of us have when it comes to defending what is right.

    Know that you have here a reader of the silent majority who supports you.

    * There is nothing wrong with making criticisms or opinion pieces, however controversial they may be (as long as they are framed within a framework of fundamental rights). The downside is presenting opinions as realities and / or knowingly using baseless arguments.

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Thanks for saying it

    2.    pablinux said

      I am not the author of this article, but, as the author of another, I also thank you. It seems incredible that defending freedom of expression and free thought is today a source of attack by some. I find the point we are reaching very sad, but I am happy to read comments like this.

      A greeting.

  2.   Miguel Rodríguez said

    I agree. However, in my place I would prefer that instead of subjecting all users of a platform to the same rules and conditions of use, that in order to opt for the new features of the platform the user has to accept the conditions of use (es that is, the policies that from time to time change according to the idiosyncrasy of the CEO basically), so that those who submit to the filters of "politically correct" and other requests due to lobbies (be they business, commercial, political , among others) whoever suffers the consequences of having accepted the new policies, on the other hand, whoever presses NO, allow them to continue using the platform, adapting it to current technology standards but without enjoying the latest features of the platform. In this way there would be different contracts for people, who would be treated differently, for example, FB policies were not as restrictive as 10 years ago, although aesthetically compared to their current staff 10 years ago it is ugly, they would be small sacrifices but which would not necessarily lead to:

    1 Violating the property of the company that offers an online service.
    2 The restrictions on what is published would vary according to the contracts accepted by the users.
    3 Older users would have the possibility to choose which usage policies would be more beneficial (downgrade).

    This as an example, but I always hated the fact that I had yes or yes accept the new policies without exception, as if the company that is dedicated to the service of social networks had not benefited from the information provided with the previous user policies . And as I understand it, if you want to make companies see if people agree or not with their new policies, it would be enough with the metrics of users who prefer the previous ones and how many do downgrades so that they can see if they maintain them or the discarded but retaining the new features. I understand that at the programming and server level it would be somewhat complex (or laborious), but no more than before the arrival of HTML5 there was a site to be seen on the desktop and another to be seen from smartphones, which is required separately. To maintain the aesthetics (template) is the unrestricted respect of what the user is willing to accept as conditions of use and to allow a return to the previous policy.

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Thanks for your comment. Your contribution is very interesting.

  3.   Well done said

    If you do not do anything wrong, do not worry that they will not censor anything, because of Trump people have died, therefore I see perfect that they shelve all their accounts so that they can not continue to incite hatred. If you don't agree with that, then you have a serious problem. For once social networks do something well, on top of that we go and criticize them, because I applaud them and take my hat off to the gesture of Twitter and other networks towards Trump.

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      And who decides if what I did is bad?

    2.    Well done said

      Damn male, what a fabric you too, you have made me feel ashamed of others. Well, who is going to decide? Logic, common sense, the owner (s) of the social network, etc, we are going to censor Trump and it is wrong, when, I repeat again, people have died because of this man and You seem to defend it, with the excuse of Linux, what a fabric ... And outside the networks who decides what is correct or not, it is justice and the judges and it is called real life, walk away ...

      1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

        Logic and common sense are arbitrary.
        I have been saying about Justice from the beginning.

  4.   David said

    Good article. It is understandable that violent hate messages, etc. are controlled.
    It is also understandable that the owners of a product can allow or not use their product to whoever they want. And social networks, unfortunately, have owners.
    That's why blogs and pages like yours free of censorship, where you print your ideas, are there for anyone who wants to read them. And the one who does not do not.
    Greetings from Córdoba (Spain)

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Thanks for your comment.

  5.   Ignacio said

    My freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins.
    Greetings.
    Ignacio

  6.   Rafa said

    Very well expressed. Unfounded censorship is always negative. I understand that the apology for violence, hatred, or abuse should be censored. But networks cannot be the farmhouse of certain ideologies, and it turns out that in some ways they are.

    The first problem is that all these dating platforms are controlled by the Zionists, and they have very clear objectives and are going to censor without any basis other than their own interests. That is why I am very reluctant to be in this type of network, I simply "don't like them" but I'm not going to bore you with my tastes either.

    The second problem is that Einstein (I think it was) was absolutely right when he said “I fear the day when technology will overtake our humanity; the world will only have a generation of idiots ”… I have always been of the opinion that the phrase of a great genius only the mediocre try to explain, because they precisely have the genius of saying a lot in a single sentence. So I think words are unnecessary.

    I can contribute little more to your writing because I have not read the articles that you quote. The only thing is that it would correct the misspelling of the title.

  7.   Charly said

    Timeo danaos et dona ferentes

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      I had to look it up
      https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes
      Without a doubt it is still good advice

  8.   Enso said

    Many unnecessary explanations; When someone is selectively outraged at an atrocity like the one that occurred with the collusion between the mass disinformation media and the damn big tech, new KGB, Gestapo and CCP police together, it is because he is a damn phony, anyone who is happy about the theft of the elections and on top of the defenselessness of the rights of the voters and then pretending to hoist the freedom of linux and you can go to wash your nose a lot or something else.

  9.   Eduardo said

    That is the problem, little by little, culturally we are less and less tolerant, any other type of beliefs or convictions to ours are directly enemies or of the other extreme ... It all started when equality little by little lost prominence in favor of the interests of a few and if we add to that the indifference to those who pass and live thousands of human beings in every corner of the planet.
    The most disturbing thing for me is that hundreds claim to be members of certain movements / principles but when analysts realize that in practice they contradict themselves or do not respect what they claim to promote / represent.
    regards

  10.   nohope said

    One of the worst things we know how to do is respect opinions, debate them and accept that sometimes we are not right, just as sometimes, perhaps less, we are right. We are by nature very bad and our human stupidity is an additional obstacle to progress in this.

    It is embarrassing for others to see how some brutes label you a fascist or a Bolshevik depending on how they have understood the few words they have read to you, or of having just seen the title of your post, thinking that the whole world fits in their neighborhood and that only exists what little they know. It is enough for them to feed their hatred and their insurmountable stupidity. Almost no one wants to spend a few minutes understanding the message or asking if it was not clear to them.

    Free software is a great initiative for people to understand what freedom is, one of many that humans give themselves and perhaps the most successful, despite not much understanding of how it can work. But it happens that well from childhood they do not teach us that our freedom only exists as long as others also enjoy theirs. So in that we will continue, running in a hurry to complete another lap of the same circle.

    Thank you.

  11.   daniel_OVen said

    We are living in dark times for freedom of expression. The propaganda machine has already done its job, finally getting the same people to cry out to be stripped of their freedom and their voice. They beg to be enslaved.

  12.   Mauro said

    and this is how another blog dies, commenting on what it does not touch

    The right to freedom of expression is not unlimited and it is only against the governments, never against other private ones, or is it that if I now in this same comment I am dedicated to ranting against your family, your pulse will tremble to erase it or moderate it?

    bye

    1.    Guillem said

      Let's see. Censorship is one thing, and moderation is another.

      Censoring is forbidding a person to express their ideas and opinions. Moderation is to prevent a person's human rights from being violated, disrespectful, etc.

      If you insult my family, and I am the moderator of said forum, blog, social network, etc. I decide to delete said comment, I will not be censoring you, I will be moderating because I do not delete an idea or an opinion, I will be deleting a comment that is disrespecting one or more people, and therefore, it could fit within that too broad concept of hate speech that has become fashionable in the media. If, on the other hand, you express your idea without disrespecting anyone, respecting everyone, etc. It would not be necessary to delete your comment because it would not be hate speech. If I deleted that comment, then it would be censorship. Another thing is that later I do not agree, in that case I would refute your arguments and we would start a debate to discuss said topic.

      By the way, I am another of those who supports Linux Addicts and its editors from the silence of my infinite laziness that is combined with my little free time.

    2.    Guillem said

      Let's see. Censorship is one thing, and moderation is another.

      Censoring is forbidding a person to express their ideas and opinions. Moderation is to prevent a person's human rights from being violated, disrespectful, etc.

      If you insult my family, and I am the moderator of said forum, blog, social network, etc. I decide to delete said comment, I will not be censoring you, I will be moderating because I do not delete an idea or an opinion, I will be deleting a comment that is disrespecting one or more people, and therefore, it could fit within that too broad concept of hate speech that has become fashionable in the media. If, on the other hand, you express your idea without disrespecting anyone, respecting everyone, etc. It would not be necessary to delete your comment because it would not be hate speech. If I deleted that comment, then it would be censorship. Another thing is that later I do not agree, in that case I would refute your arguments and we would start a debate to discuss said topic.

      By the way, I am another of those who supports Linux Addicts and its editors from the silence of my infinite laziness that is combined with my little free time.

    3.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      In what context?
      If my family owned IBM and I defended Red Hat's decisions regarding CentOS, I shouldn't censor you

    4.    nebio said

      At age five, humans begin to understand that the world does not disappear when they stop looking at it.

      1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

        It seems that not all.

  13.   yo said

    Excellent post really. I congratulate you Diego.

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Thank you.

  14.   Camilo Bernal said

    Many ask Where is the limit? I believe that the limit is in death; As soon as deaths begin to occur as a result of irresponsible content on networks, it is necessary to start blocking accounts.

  15.   ruben mansilla said

    I also lived in the time of the dictatorship, and I agree with you that they were times of anxiety, horrible, unhealthy, calamitous, times of murder and torture of innocent people, it cost us more than 30 deaths and the immense pain of their families, to I was "sold" the '000 World Cup, color television and the Falklands war ... but I learned something else that has nothing to do with your concept of censorship ..., freedom of expression cannot be total, as another comment says , It must be framed within respect and truthfulness, its ultimate goal must be the good, there are expressions, images, works, and everything liable to be censored that must be, the rule to measure the good and the bad is ethics, and it should never be morality, religion or politics ... we are living in a time where inequalities are increasingly accentuated, where purchasing power, communicational power, knowledge are concentrated in fewer and fewer people, that is why the power of censor must e be in the hands of the philosopher, I believe that the solution to this problem is to tend towards a more egalitarian, wiser, and therefore more just and reflective society.

  16.   Roberto said

    I join Mauro's comment, freedom of expression is always limited, it is de facto agreed by the owner of the product
    If facebook were mine, or twitter or any social network I would do what I please because the product is mine, therefore it could be censored according to the owners' thinking
    There could be censorship here too (which I hope there isn't)
    True freedom of expression occurred in ancient Greece or in the Roman forum where one spoke by showing one's face and not hiding behind a social network that no one really knows who is behind it. I hope you got the idea
    Greetings and I give a loyal reader of this site
    Roberto

  17.   David naranjo said

    Good morning Diego, I hadn't taken the time to read your article until just a few minutes ago.

    I can say that I still do not fully understand the feeling that the discontent they have caused you has generated in you, but I can tell you that you do not have to get so hooked on the comments.

    And as you well know, there are user comments that are quite grateful and, like the other side of the coin, you will receive comments from typical Troll users or from those who express superiority to one in terms of knowledge.

    Put aside everything that you know does not come to you, as you mentioned that you were treated as "misogynist, macho and sympathetic to Vox" ... and well as I said, it is not worth getting hooked, it is simply better to take the positive side and see the area of ​​opportunity (at least as we say it here in Mexico).
    Because for me it would have been very easy to start a debate with the one who commented on the history lessons that they wanted to instill in me, but honestly it is a waste of time and effort (unless I had nothing to do, possibly I would have taken the moment), but Well, it was not like that, I simply chose not to answer, even though maybe I did wrong and it would only have appeared because of the data to take it into account.

    And well as for shaking me, well it is a site which is full of trolls and a mafia that does not let users or new sites that try to contribute something to grow and I tell you why they almost always comment on nonsensical things .

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Hello david.
      This is the Internet. Since when do you have to read articles before commenting on them? Anyway, thanks for doing it.
      The article is not because of what generates criticism for me as an author, unfair or not.
      I wrote it because I am very concerned about the naturalization that there is a "good censorship" and a "bad censorship"
      Censorship is never good because with harmful content the same as with vampires. It grows in the dark and is destroyed when you expose it to sunlight.
      Also, nobody goes out to kill people or becomes racist because they read a tweet or a book or because a video game or a movie puts it in their head.
      Nor is it worth arguing the terms and conditions. A social network is not a restaurant or a cinema, that is why it cannot rely on the right of admission to censor anyone. Much less when it is public and notorious that it does not apply the same criteria for dictators as for democratically elected presidents (we like those presidents or not).
      But, what made me jump the plugs (in Argentina we also have our sayings) is that they complained to Pablinux for not indicating the ideology of the creators of Dissenter. Will they refuse to receive the Coronavirus cure if the creator kills baby kittens to take their blood?

  18.   chiwy said

    And what do you think of Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance?

    https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoja_de_la_tolerancia

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Democratic constitutions clearly establish what the limits are to freedom of expression and who is responsible for enforcing them.

      I would have nothing to object if a judge had ordered Twitter to terminate Trump's account, nor would he write an article (if it had the slightest relationship with Linux) if the North American Congress approves the Impeachment procedure.

      I have no objection to the application of laws established prior to the event and in which the injured party has the right to defense.

  19.   Rachel said

    All my support to the authors of this blog. Keep reflecting out loud with this equanimity that doesn't always match the mainstream in everything. It is noted that there is an effort to find a truth and that the result of this effort will sometimes coincide mainly with the tendencies of one side; sometimes with someone else's and, finally, other times it will satisfy anyone more generally.

    Freedom of expression is fundamental for the freedom of people because it affects their internal jurisdiction. If it is possible to bend the internal jurisdiction of the people, they will be servants of the one who presses the most. Those who press may be the GAFA today, yesterday Trump or Pablo Iglesias and the Black Lives Matter, and tomorrow who knows.

    A lot could be said about freedom of expression, but I will only say that it is a legal concept and, as such, it is subject to its own rules that go beyond the simple understanding of the term. Not everyone is trained to understand its scope, its implications and its interactions with other rights. It is good to have an opinion of your own, but most of the criticisms I read about subjecting to limitation - of companies, eye - freedom of expression do not even intuit what they are talking about. They believe that it is a very simple concept and reality and so are the correlative opinions, when, on the other hand, it is something very complex that requires an analysis with many points involved.

    Most of the reflections are a mere self-interested reductionism or a simplification that takes the whole for the part. That is, a cognitive bias that says very little about whoever intervenes in this way

    1.    Diego German Gonzalez said

      Thanks for your comment

  20.   Madara071 said

    You have my full support, never abandon your ideals. Ironically, those who complain about hate messages are really those who distribute hate messages. Completely regrettable and unjustified the unfortunate level of censorship that big technology has carried out, both for Trump and for anyone who is not on the extreme left. And Mozilla's position is unfortunate, something that really surprises me since one would think it would be the opposite. Personally I will abandon Firefox, I do not care about the monopoly, if I have to use a Chronium browser then I will use it, the problem will be to choose which browser. I don't know if Brave is trustworthy or Vivaldi. At the moment I think that the most reliable could be Gab's browser that is based on Brave,

  21.   Madara071 said

    You have my full support, keep it up.

  22.   Andrés said

    Someone said, referring to the arrival of fascism in the USA: "The fascists of tomorrow will call themselves anti-fascists." And keeping that in mind and placing it globally, you can explain many things that happen.

    I have lived in a dictatorship and I have suffered it personally. And these times we live in are quite similar to those. For those who died in concentration camps or gulags, they did not care whether their murderer was named José or Adolfo. They were both murderers.

    So easy on my friend. Many of those who criticize you today will be victims in the future of what they defend themselves now… but there will be no one left to help them. Keep defending and being faithful to your principles and do not practice that Marxist precept "... and if you don't like them, I have others."

    I may or may not agree with what you say but I would defend with my life your right to say it.

  23.   José Antonio said

    "They treated me as a misogynist, a macho and a Vox sympathizer"

    Maybe it was because these kinds of comments

    "Note that Mrs. Baker does not say anything about black tweeters calling for violent retaliatory actions against whites or the hateful message from women who consider every heterosexual male a rapist."

    They are what racists, misogynists and Vox sympathizers use in Spain.

    On Twitter Spain (I don't know in other parts of the world), sooooo many accounts are suspended every month. And of those that I know, more rappers, "lefties" (also "left-wing rappers"), anarchists ... than racists, misogynists and powerful. It is true that my TL is skewed, of course.

    1.    pablinux said

      What you say is not true. They recently suspended a right-wing priest (I am not religious, nor did I follow him) for tweeting "When you are a father, you will eat eggs." They have taken advantage of a Spanish saying to shoot a "cool" priest that draws the attention of many young people, because Christianity currently has to be persecuted and other religions not (I repeat, I am not religious). In fact, YouTube suspended a live channel where the same priest was leaving explaining what was happening. And no, I was not following the channel either, but on Twitter things spread and I found out. Does "Censored Pater" sound familiar to you? It was TT in Spain.

      Regarding your date, a song that said "the rapist is you" has been a worldwide "hit", so that saying that "every heterosexual male is a rapist" is true. In fact, there are more important women who say it in their speech, but add the "potential" up front just in case; otherwise it would be a crime.

      That what he says is also said by a party that you do not like does not mean that it is false nor does it make the person a voter for that party. And come on, the problem according to that is 1- criticizes a woman (macho), 2- asks for the violent actions of all (racist) to be condemned, 3- He is outraged by content such as songs and texts that point to him as a potential rapist (misogynist). Well, very well: let's not criticize women, let's condemn only some crimes and when they tell us that we are rapists, we accept it with a smile. Everything solved, we enter the mainstream and the world will be better ... or not.

      A greeting.