Pablinux, David Naranjo, and I don't know each other. We're different ages, live in different countries, and apart from using Linux, we probably don't have much in common.
Without prior agreement, the three of us decided to write about topics related to the social media platforms' decision to ban Donald Trump and some of his supporters. David chose to explain the events without adding commentary. Pablinux reluctantly recommended a tool to circumvent censorship, and I launched a scathing attack on the increasing politicization of the Mozilla Foundation.
Apart from a reader's criticism accusing him of historical inaccuracy, David didn't generate much controversy. Pablinux bore the brunt of it. Several readers complained about his failure to clarify the creator's ideological background, and one asserted that the problem lay in how it was going to be used.
I didn't fare too badly. (At least I wasn't accused of being mentally unstable like on Menéame.) I was called a misogynist, a sexist, and a Vox supporter (My biography clearly states that I live in Argentina). Another reader claimed that censorship is a matter of degree.
More things about me than they wanted to know
Unlike many of our readers, I lived under a dictatorship. The one that ruled Argentina between 1976 and 1983. I don't know anyone who disappeared, but among my early childhood memories is that of my mother taking books from the library and giving them to my father to burn, while warning my brother and me not to say anything.
A year later came the Falklands War when we went from hearing in all the media that we were winning to the news of the surrender.
In 1984, Buenos Aires celebrated its first International Book Fair in the democratic era. The featured photo in all the newspapers was an electronic catalog showing where to buy Marx's books.
Ah, it wasn't just books and films that bothered the censors. In one province, the teaching of Modern Mathematics was banned. Apparently, Set Theory was considered subversive.
All those years of unread books, undebated opinions, and unlearned lessons are largely to blame for the current decline of Argentina's leadership and, consequently, the country's. So, please excuse me if I'm not convinced by the "good censorship" versus "bad censorship" argument.
Where were the principles that we defended?
Leaving aside my (admittedly) unimpressive autobiography, the banning of Trump and the elimination of the competition that tried to give him a platform sets a dangerous precedent.
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?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a statement on the matter at hand . As everyone knows, they have an equestrian statue of Santiago Abascal at their 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 U.S. Capitol. We stand with all those working to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and we are grateful for the service of the politicians, staff, and other workers who endured many hours of confinement and gathered to fulfill their constitutional duties.
The decision by Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and others to suspend and/or block President Trump's communications across their platforms is simply an exercise of their rights, under the First Amendment and Section 230, to curate their sites. We support those rights. However, we are always concerned when platforms assume the role of censors , and we continue to urge them to apply a human rights framework to these decisions. We also note that these same platforms have, for years, chosen 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 one 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 . On the contrary, they should be just as judicious in removing content from ordinary users as they have been to date with regard to heads of state . Looking ahead, we once again call on platforms to be more transparent and consistent in how they apply their rules, and we urge policymakers to find ways to foster competition so that users have a wide range of editorial and political options to choose from.
That is the spirit in which I suggest alternatives and oppose censorship . The four original freedoms of Free Software do not, at any point, 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 that.
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.