Bluesky Users Want Safe Free Speech
Fundamental misunderstanding of free speech persists.
Lately I’ve seen a lot of reporting about a new social media company called Bluesky that is apparently being billed as a forum for free speech that is also free from what is characterized as the “right wing toxicity” of Twitter.
As recently reported in Tech Crunch:
Now with 25 million users, Bluesky is facing a test that will determine whether or not its platform will still be seen as a safe space and place of refuge from the toxicity of X. In recent days, a large number of users on Bluesky have been urging the company to ban one newcomer for his opinions and works shared both on and off the platform.
Writer and podcast host Jesse Singal joined Bluesky 12 days ago to the horror of much of the Bluesky community. Singal has been cataloged by GLAAD’s Accountability Project for his writings on transgender issues and other matters. The GLAAD project “catalogs anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and discriminatory actions of politicians, commentators, organization heads, religious leaders, and legal figures, who have used their platforms, influence, and power to spread misinformation and harm LGBTQ people.” …
In Bluesky’s earlier days, trans users, like many other marginalized groups, and Black and queer users, flocked to the social network from Twitter (now called X) after Elon Musk bought it and began to promote more right-wing and conservative views. Bluesky has many custom tools that allow people to control their own social networking experience, including block lists, layered moderation, custom feeds, custom algorithms, labeling services, and more. This allows users to do things like block groups of users they may not want to interact with — like MAGA supporters, for instance, who can be found on a dedicated block list.
Many in the community who escaped Twitter now feel their Bluesky experience is at risk because of Singal’s joining. As a high-profile user, he brings a network of followers with him, which could lead to increased harassment, they say.
In other words, many Bluesky users do NOT want to be in a free speech forum. They want to be in a community in which they can express their views to like-minded people and receive the approbation of like-minded people.
Recent reporting about Bluesky is a reminder that the desire to cultivate and protect free speech is not really a natural inclination. This explains why, throughout history, protection of free speech has been a rare exception, and not the rule.
It’s a remarkable paradox of our time that many people who identity themselves as “liberals” are not in favor of free speech, but would prefer to see censorship of the people with whom they disagree.
And yet, if you only talk and listen to people with whom you already agree on everything, you are unlikely to learn anything new.
In political discourse, the desire to censor has long been attributed to the tyrant’s fear of his own people. If they are allowed to speak freely, they may criticize him, his power, and his privileges.
Likewise, I suspect that the Bluesky users who are urging the company to ban Jesse Singal are afraid. The world is a frightening place, full of people who don’t share our opinions. Such people may challenge our worldview. Most frightening of all, they may threaten the foundational beliefs that buttress our self-image and the defenses we have erected to protect ourselves from guilt and shame. Better to remain in the safety of like-minded people who won’t threaten us.
I once asked a prominent plastic surgeon (for beauty enhancement) what he has learned about human nature in his 25 years of practice.
“It’s that people live in constant fear,” he explained. “Fear of losing their status and their wealth, fear of being alone, fear of growing old, and fear of dying. I think that most people are afraid all the time.”
His remark reminded me of my favorite scene in the 2000 film Gladiator.
"And yet, if you only talk and listen to people with whom you already agree on everything, you are unlikely to learn anything new."
Liberalism in a nutshell.
After reading this, "Recent reporting about Bluesky is a reminder that the desire to cultivate and protect free speech is not really a natural inclination. This explains why, throughout history, protection of free speech has been a rare exception and not the rule." I was prompted to share my thoughts on the historical and social dynamics of repression and transformation:
The insecurity described is understandable in a world undergoing rapid changes and increasing social tensions. However, this sentiment can be addressed through individual and collective efforts to foster mental resilience, solidarity, and knowledge. Returning to fundamental values such as intellectual curiosity, community, and purposeful human action offers a realistic path to counter the fear of a metaphorical "zombie apocalypse."
There is reason for hope. As a social scientist, I have learned from history and social science that tyranny has both a beginning and an end.
While societies rarely resort to extreme measures against their leaders, parallels can be found in the natural world. For example, New Scientist reported a striking case in Senegal where chimpanzees killed and cannibalized their former alpha, Foudouko. This rare event sheds light on the dynamics of betrayal and coalition-building.
Dr. Yeadon's observations align with Gustave Le Bon's theories on crowd psychology. In The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Le Bon explains that leaders who betray their followers’ trust can trigger intense emotional reactions, leading to impulsive and collective actions.
This phenomenon, referred to as the "Le Bon effect," reflects the social unrest that emerges when prolonged repression stifles a society’s freedom.
History also demonstrates that sustaining strict control through repression, censorship, and surveillance is ultimately unsustainable. Key reasons include:
Economic Strain: Maintaining surveillance and large-scale security infrastructures drains financial resources, diverting them from essential sectors like education and healthcare.
Social Unrest: Persistent repression breeds widespread dissatisfaction, increasing the likelihood of rebellion or resistance.
In recent history, no oppressive regime has endured indefinitely. The combination of public dissatisfaction, economic challenges, and external pressures inevitably forces change.
Over time, these regimes must either adapt or collapse under their inherent instability.
Some governments respond by easing restrictions, implementing reforms, or transitioning to more democratic systems.
South Korea provides an example, evolving from authoritarian rule to democracy in the late 20th century under significant internal and external demands for change. In contrast, regimes that resist adaptation often face sudden and dramatic collapse.
The Soviet Union, for instance, disintegrated due to widespread dissatisfaction and economic decline.
Romania’s history offers another vivid example. Nicolae Ceaușescu's authoritarian regime fell in 1989 during a popular uprising fueled by years of oppression and economic mismanagement.
This collapse highlights how accumulated grievances, declining resources, and external pressures can dismantle even the most entrenched regimes.
History underscores that no tyranny has lasted indefinitely. The pressure to maintain control in the face of growing dissatisfaction, economic hardship, and external challenges ensures that oppressive systems eventually transform through gradual reform or abrupt collapse.
These regimes are inherently unsustainable in the long term.
While some regimes, such as those in China and North Korea, have maintained control for extended periods, their endurance often depends on external factors like geopolitical leverage and internal propaganda rather than fundamental differences.
The inherent pressures of repression inevitably lead to either reform or collapse.
Although regimes like Iran and Syria have persisted for decades, their survival is not guaranteed indefinitely.
Economic hardship, internal dissent, and shifting international dynamics could challenge their hold on power.
History teaches that even the most entrenched tyrannies are ultimately vulnerable to collapse or transformation.