I feel, and fear, that the lines are getting blurrier and blurrier. When we hold someone socially accountable for something they say, or some idea they espouse – and we do so by way of silencing them or terminating services of any kind to them, a few things happen. First, we may be seen as exercising our own right to freely speak (and sure, why not?). Second, we haven’t turned that mind around and instead driving the thing underground (where it can and does continue to fester). Third, we willfully and purposefully exercise an act of control over someone else – an act that in actuality we may or may not have a right to. This third point is the blurriest, and it may simply have no good single answer.

The more frightful thing that seems to be happening is that now we not only hold the individual responsible, but the platform itself responsible. Why? Should the ISP that serves the user’s connection also be responsible for letting that person even access the Internet? Should the email service provider not share in the blame, by allowing that individual the continued ability to communicate with those he or she forms such thoughts and ideas with? If a group rents equipment to loudly broadcast its ideas, or purchases the paper and supplies necessary for its signs, would we or should we hold the suppliers of these things responsible if the group is deemed toxic? How far down the social-justice rabbit-hole can and should we, the society, go? Where will it end?

I realize this may read a bit like a slippery-slope, but considering what we’ve seen in the world recently, and how increasing inter-connectivity enables large-scale reactions to things we were previously unable to really react to – I think we are now forced to consider these potential outcomes. With the prevalence of social data-mining and life-capture, not only online but in every store we physically visit, every place we go (thanks to our phones), and the sale of this data, it must be only a matter of time before that social history gets linked with our likeness, and becomes an easy buy and even an expectation. And worse than the effect it may have on those we might currently consider deserving of such outcomes, what of those who will have their lives compromised by identity-theft or outright lies? It’s not unreasonable to conjecture how a nefarious individual may easily topple the lives of those who have done no wrong, simply by implanting ideas, messages, allegations, and sufficient coincidence as to hit all the right social-justice buttons. Where would one go to correct that social-credit violation? Who would serve them in the meantime?

I wouldn’t fear the above conjecture if we could count on people to do their own checking of the sources, and the sources’ sources. Unfortunately, we can’t.

It’s not very comforting to think that only two polar-opposite states can reliably exist: one of total and complete openness (absolute free-speech), and one of, well, Sesame Credit’s likeness. We are all looking for the right compromise, or maybe any compromise. There was a time in most countries, and in many it still exists, where any blaspheme was punishable by law – and whatever was considered blaspheme was or is up to the leading authorities’ determination (possibly including personal beliefs). The migration away from the archaic ideologies promulgated by religious authorities cannot take place if such conversations are outlawed. However, to those authorities, such conversations are toxic (in their estimation) to the society at large and ought to be silenced. We have fought a hard battle to win the right for the relatively toxic speech to be voiced. But maybe our victory or its possible eventual loss is not one purely of decision.

Watching the social dynamics play out, it’s easy to understand why any company may feel compelled to protect itself against its own customers. As I asked above, where should culpability cease? If a company does not comply with the current social landscape, it may quickly find itself obliterated – in a Darwin-like manner, as you said. But does that landscape always tend towards the greater freedom, or the greater equality? In other explorations, I have heard my wife defend her right to choose her lifestyle (that of a housewife and home-schooling mom) against those who claim that housewives are damaging to the economic prospects of all women, and ought to be done away with. Henry Ford’s offering of “You can choose any color, so long as it’s black” feels very much like the kind of choice many social pressures tend to exert. In a way, it almost seems to be a battle of freedom against freedom – with subtle differences between what each group considers “freedom.”

Crusaders and jihadists alike believe, in their hearts, minds and souls, that they are doing the right and good thing. They are convinced of this through and through, as is everyone who, well, isn’t self-loathing and convinced of their own uselessness. Most of us just don’t have the same fervor as those two groups.

I have pondered at different ways to approach the concept of freedom. Ideas like: “You can do anything you want, so long as it does not injure or diminish the freedoms of another” come to mind. The next step is to throw use-cases against it and see how it holds up. And of course the definitions… What is a freedom? Is a freedom an act you can do, or a thing you allow or disallow to have happen to you? For example, is freedom the right to speak openly, or the right to not be made fearful because of someone else’s speech? Is not being fearful a right or a freedom that one can or should have? While that is certainly one component to the debates about freedom, I know there is also the very real and justifiable fear of what a population of humans can do (and have done), when they are convinced of a cause and compelled to do horrible things for that cause.

Thanks again!