For the record, I’m not making a free speech absolutist argument.
That’s a really strange disclaimer over a fundamental right akin to
I’m not a self-determination absolutist
I’m not a due-process-of-law absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-movement absolutist
I’m not a freedom-of-conscience absolutist
I’m not a warranted-search-and-seizure absolutist
Absolutism here isn’t mentioned to disclaim protection of illegal speech, because that’s already unprotected, and no one here would dispute that. In this context, absolutism disclaims protection of unpopular speech people here would denounce, so it disclaims freedom of speech entirely.
This denies the presumption of a fundamental right as protected, which is entirely backward. Fundamental rights are presumed protected, whereas attempts to restrict or challenge them need strict scrutiny. The less common disclaimer
I’m not a censorship absolutist
is an asymmetry revealing a copout.
As for regulation, it’s a private device people are free to denounce, customize, or reject for a competitor. People have the liberty to produce & choose censored junk. An open society doesn’t restrict such choices when it can leverage fundamental rights[1] to denounce, criticize, and challenge.
this community seems to cower from defending ↩︎
Enforce web accessibility.
Bluesky and other parts of the fediverse like mastodon do this well.
Some communities do it better, but lemmy instances overall do not.
Lemmy users consistently show they do not get it, defend panaceas that do not fulfill web accessibility, and respond with hostility when it’s pointed out that inaccessible content is a systematic failure of will (poor choices of client & execution), not of capacity.