Speaking Freely

I was speaking to a friend recently and the problem of free speech came up. I
shouldn't call it a problem, actually, as it is the solution to a problem. The
problem is a perennial one, which is another way of saying a really really
hard problem, one that we will continually face, for as long as we're human.

The problem is this: what is the right problem to solve? It's a problem about
problems, which is of course a meta problem. We are, as homo sapiens, a thinking
organism. Both collectively, as well as individually. Thinking is what defines
us, but it isn't just thinking for thinking's sake; it is thinking to figure
stuff out without having to get killed in the process all the time. A less
violent form of evolution, if you will.

The Ancients placed a great deal of emphasis on attention. Attention is plagued
by a meta-problem too, which is, of course, what to pay attention to?
Answering this question requires paying attention to what you're paying
attention to, which is what separates a smart person from a wise one.

Which brings me to one of the things I'm currently worried about.
Civilizationally speaking, we are very smart but not very wise. We are very bad
at paying attention to what we're paying attention to, at least right now. And
I'm afraid that both the broken incentives that plague the internet, as
well as our broken money,
are to blame. At least in part.

Assumptions [n=0]#

∀i≤c[^1]
P!=NP[^2]
Life is worth living[^3]
There's no free lunch[^4]
Free Speech is desirable[^5]

The Logos [n=1]#

There is a reason why The Logos is sacred. It is the same reason why the First
Amendment is the first, which means primary.

Free speech is not optional; it is not optional because we need to be able to
speak freely so that we might have a chance to think freely. There is no proper
thinking without proper speaking just like there is no proper speaking without
proper thinking. We must be allowed to say foolish things, just like we must be
allowed to think foolish things.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man.

—George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

The line between genius and Madman is a thin one for a reason. What is foolish
and what is genius is often very hard to differentiate. That's why all progress
depends on the Unreasonable Man.

How do we have any chance to find and be able to listen to the Unreasonable Man
if we silence him? Even worse, how do we listen to the unreasonable/genius parts
of ourselves, if we are afraid to speak out in public or in private?

DiaLogos [n=2]#

Free and unencumbered dialogue is not optional either. We need to be able to
discuss things so that others might tell us where we are stupid. And we're all
stupid. We might be stupid in our own peculiar ways, but nevertheless, we are
all stupid. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion, just like there is no
such thing as a viewpoint without a blind spot. The best we can do is be aware
of and try to counteract our biases and blind spots. But we can't do it
individually; we have to do it collectively, and more importantly: in a
distributed fashion.[^podcasts]

[^podcasts]: It is great to see a proliferation of long-form dialog in the form of podcasts. However, the benefit of these conversations is lost if they are hosted by a central party, which is why an open podcast ecosystem is so important.

Building a Tower of Babel is a bad idea.

Distributed Cognition [n=m]#

Public discourse is not optional either. In today's day and age, especially
online, public discourse is problematic, to put it mildly. One of the problems
is that we don't have any public spaces, so we are forced to use private spaces
as quasi-public ones.

The go-to method for saying something publicly online is to step on a platform
and say what you have to say. The problem is, of course, that it is not your
platform. It is someone else's platform. That's why you can be de-platformed.

The difference between all these platforms is one of degree not of kind. On
some platforms, you might land in proverbial jail for sexual content. On other
platforms, you might land in jail for political speech. Not even proverbially.[^jail]

[^jail]: See cases in the UK, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find
something in them to have him hanged.

—Cardinal Richelieu

If someone has the power to de-platform someone else, this power will inevitably
be used and abused. A large enough scandal or controversy will be found or
manufactured and poof, the "problematic" user is gone. Unpersoned, at the
push of a button. No matter how powerful you are.[^trump]

[^trump]: Not even sitting US-presidents are safe from deplatforming.

That's why Free Speech
platforms cannot
exist. Only Free Speech
protocols
can exist.

The difference is as subtle as it is important: when using a protocol, you're
not a user in the traditional sense. You are a speaker. You speak the same
language as other people, and if someone else can hear and understand you, there
is a connection. There is no facilitator in between. The language itself is the
facilitator. Languages are protocols and protocols are languages. They don't
have users; they have speakers.

Language is inherently permissionless. You don't need an English account to read
these sentences. In the same vein, your computer doesn't need an HTTP account to
make sense of the zeros and ones that make up the bytes that in turn make up the
characters of this sentence. You both speak the language, hence you can make
sense of it.

Languages and protocols are network phenomena. No network, no language. No
peers, no protocols.

That's why language, like money, is not optional in a complex society. If you
mess with either, society crumbles.

It's (Up)On Us [n=i]#

We are at a pivotal time in history. Never before was our civilization this
connected, this global, and this unaware of its limitations and ignorance.

My hope is that sound money and free speech will revivify what made our society great
in the first place. Cooperation and distributed cognition are what allowed us to
leave the chaos of the jungle behind. It is what allowed us to move from an eye
for an eye to seeing clearly, at least some of the time. It is what allowed us
to move from scarcity to abundance. It is what allows us to move towards the
True, the Good, and the Beautiful. It allows us to aspire. Onward and
upward.

The Kairos of our time is a personal one—maybe all kairotic moments are.

You have to decide how to move forward. You have to decide what game you want to
play; how much responsibility you are willing to shoulder. Do
you want to stay stuck in the machine? A machine that uses and abuses you? A
machine that feeds itself by extracting and devouring your time, attention, and
value? Or do you have the courage to take control of your wealth,
health, thoughts, and speech?

Nobody can make this decision for you. It starts and ends with you.

[^1]: No information can travel faster than the speed of light. Consequently, all information systems will run into physical constraints when it comes to synchronization and information propagation.
[^2]: Cryptography works and will continue to work. "[...] somehow the universe smiles on encryption."
[^3]: Existence is Real and Good. Neither Nihilism nor Solipsism are desirable. "[...] and it was good."
[^4]: We can't have something for nothing. Freedom requires responsibility; electronic cash requires time; time requires heat.
[^5]: Freedom of speech is desirable because freedom is preferrable to tyranny, and the first step of any tyrant is to restrict speech, silence dissidents, and burn books. The second step is genocide.

This article first appeared on dergigi.com.