Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

@matrikslee 我打算直接用奥威尔的另一篇文章回复你

"世界上最早的消遣之一就是揭露民主。在这个国家，你不会操心没人发表反对人民统治的反动言论，过去二十年来，“资产阶级民主”遭到了来自法西斯党人和共产党人更加巧妙高明的抨击，而值得高度重视的是，这些表面上的敌人是站在同一立场发起抨击的。确实，法西斯党人的宣传方式要更大胆一些，而且在情况对他们有利的时候还会借用贵族阶层的理由，说民主“会让最卑劣的坏人掌握最高的权力”，但所有为极权主义辩护的人的基本论点是民主有其弊端，认为它只是用于掩饰由一小撮富人进行统治的伪装。这种说法并非全然错误，而且很难看出它的谬误。恰恰相反，它的合理之处大于其不合理之处。一个六岁的小学生更擅长于抨击民主而不是为其辩护。除非你了解反对民主的“言论”的本质，并愿意承认它颇有道理，否则你无法对它作出回应。

首先，反对“资产阶级民主”的理由总是经济上的不平等。对于一个每天工作12个小时，每周只能挣到3英镑的人来说，政治上的自由有什么意义呢？他或许每五年有一次机会投票给他最喜欢的政党，但接下来的时间里基本上他的每一个生活细节都由他的雇主所主宰。事实上，他的政治生活也是被主宰的。有产阶级能够将所有重要的内阁和政府职位掌握在自己的手中，而且他们能通过直接或间接贿赂选民的方式左右选举体制，为自己谋利。即使在机缘巧合之下一个代表穷苦阶层的政府掌握了权力，那些有钱人也总是能够通过威胁将资本转到国外的方式对它予取予求。最重要的是，几乎整个英国的文化和知识生活——报纸、书籍、教育、电影、电台——都被有产阶层所掌控，他们有最强烈的动机阻止某些理念的传播。一个民主国家的市民从一出生就被“控制”，比起极权主义国家，这种控制没有那么僵化，但同样行之有效。

没有人能肯定特权阶级的统治能通过纯粹的民主方式被打破。理论上，一个工党政府能够以绝对多数的优势掌权并立刻通过议会法案建立起社会主义。在实际生活中，有产阶层将会造反，而且可能会取得胜利，因为他们拥有从事工作最久的官僚队伍，而且重要的军事岗位上都是他们的人。民主方式只有在各个政党之间有了广泛共识的情况下才会可行。没有站得住脚的理由认为本质的改变能够和平实现。

需要再强调一遍，总是有人争辩说民主的整个假象——言论和集会自由、独立工会运动等——在有产阶级不再愿意与他们的工人达成妥协时就会分崩离析。他们说政治“自由”只是一场贿赂，是没有流血的盖世太保的代替品。确实，我们所说的民主国家通常都是繁荣的国家——大部分国家都在直接或间接地剥削廉价的有色人种劳动力——而且我们所了解的民主只存在于海洋国家或山地国家，即那些不需要以大规模的常备陆军捍卫自己的国家。民主总是伴随着，或者说总是要求美好的生活条件。它不可能在贫穷和军事化的国家获得兴盛。他们说，假如英国的条件不是那么得天独厚的话，英国将很快会沦落到和罗马尼亚一样采取卑劣的政治手段的地步。而且，所有的政府，无论是民主政府还是极权主义政府，说到底都得依靠暴力。所有的政府，除非它愿意自己被颠覆或推翻，在遭到严重威胁时都会无视民主权利的尊严。一个陷入绝望的战争的民主国家会被迫实施征兵制，强迫工人进行劳动，关押失败主义者，取缔煽动性的报纸，和专制国家或法西斯国家没什么两样。换句话说，它只有变成非民主国家才能拯救自己免遭毁灭。战斗一打响，那些原本是捍卫目标的事物总是被弃如敝履。

大体上说，这些就是法西斯党人和共产党人提出的反对“资产阶级民主”的理由，虽然侧重点各有不同。你必须承认每一点都颇有道理。但是，为什么它归根结底是错误的呢？——每个生活在民主国家的人都能半是出自本能地知道这一番大道理出了差错。

这一番熟悉的对民主的贬斥，其错误之处在于它无法解释关于民主的所有事实。国与国之间的社会气氛和政治行为的实际区别比任何将法律、风俗、传统等事物简单地斥之为“上层建筑”的理论愿意承认的要大得多。在书面上要证明民主和极权主义“没什么两样”（或“同样卑劣”）是很简单的事情。德国有集中营，而印度也有集中营。犹太人在法西斯主义统治的国度遭受迫害，那南非的种族歧视法律呢？在所有的极权主义国家，思想诚实是一项罪名，但即使在英国，说出和写出真相也并不一定会带来好处。像这样的类比可以无休止地延伸，但其背后所隐含的思想是程度上的不同并不能构成实质的不同。比方说，民主国家确实有政治迫害。问题是有多严重？过去七年来有多少难民从不列颠或大英帝国出逃？又有多少人从德国出逃？你认识的人里有多少人曾经被橡胶警棍殴打或被强迫喝下多达数升的蓖麻油呢？你认为走进最近的一间酒吧并说这是一场资本主义的战争，因此我们应该停止战斗，这会有危险吗？你能指出在英国近代史或美国近代史上有过类似于六月清洗，或俄国对托派分子的审判，或冯·拉斯遇刺后的暴动之类的事件吗？一篇类似我正在撰写的文章能够在任何极权主义国家刊登吗？无论那是一个红色国度、黑色国度还是棕色国度？《每日工人报》被取缔了，但那是经过了整整十年，而在罗马、莫斯科或柏林，它不可能撑上十天。过去六个月来，英国不仅置身战争之中，而且遇到了自特拉法尔加海战以来最绝望的困境。而且——这是最重要的一点——即使《每日工人报》被取缔，它的编辑们仍然能够在公开场合鼓噪，发表声明为自己辩护，在议院里提问，希望得到政治色彩各异的善良的人们的支持。在十几个其它国家是天经地义、一劳永逸的“清算”不仅没有发生，而且几乎没有人会想到这种事情可能会发生。

英国的法西斯分子和共产党人会有支持希特勒的想法并不重要，重要的是，他们有胆量表达这些想法。他们这么做等于是默认民主自由终归不是假把式。1929年至1934年间，所有正统的共产党人都相信“社会法西斯主义”（即社会主义）是工人阶级真正的敌人，而资本主义民主比起法西斯主义也好不到哪里去。但是，希特勒上台后，数以万计的德国共产党人——仍然高喊着同样的信条，直到一段时间后才将其放弃——逃到了法国、瑞士、英国、美国或其它愿意接纳他们的民主国家。他们的行动背叛了他们说过的话，正如列宁所说的，他们“用脚作出了投票”。在这里你会看到资本主义民主最大的优点。那就是，在民主国家，人民相对比较有安全感，你会知道当你和朋友谈论政治时不会有盖世太保正把耳朵贴在钥匙孔上，你会相信除非你触犯了法律，否则“他们”是不能惩罚你的，你还会相信法律的地位凌驾于政府之上。这种信念在部分程度上只是幻觉并不重要——当然，它的确就是幻觉。一个广泛传播的幻觉能够影响公共的行为，这本身就是一个重要的事实。让我们想象本届政府或未来的政府决定在取缔了《每日工人报》之后要彻底消灭共产党，就像意大利和德国的做法那样。很有可能他们会发现这是不可能完成的任务，因为这种政治迫害只能在完全成熟的盖世太保体制下才能做到，而英国没有这么一台机器，目前也无力去创建它。
(法西斯主义与民主)

@matrikslee 嗯，不过专制政权指鹿为马，颠倒黑白的能力可是大公司怎么比也比不上的，RMS在美国可能会丢工作，在中国和苏联可能就要进监狱或者掉脑袋了，纽约时报和CNN再一手遮天，也做不到像人民日报或真理报那样给整个国家"定调"。你可以在YouTube上大骂拜登和CNN，乃至民主党和资本主义，但是你做不到在Bilibili和优酷上批评习近平和人民日报，抨击不了共产党，哪怕是称赞也不可以，提到名字就封掉你的号。
欧美国家在近几十年有明显的寡头化倾向，但即便是这样，自由和民主在这些国家也还是一个多少的问题，而在中国，自由和民主则是一个有无的问题

@freemo @bonifartius I would like to add that the word "Diversity", often coming together with two other words "Inclusion" "Equity" means something very different from how people think they are: Diversity is about the diversity of identies(e.g. black man, colored woman, transgender, the fat and the disabled), not about the diversity of opinions and thoughts, in the name of diversity the woke promotes conformity of ideology, namely critical social justice theory, so you have black critical theorists, transgender critical theorists, fat critical theorists who believe basically the same thing about power dynamics and hidden oppressive structure underlying pretty much all of our daily activities, or daily languages, yet are invisible to most people, they can only be spotted by someone with critical conscious, who is "woke". Inclusion in practice basically means speech codes and safety spaces, that you are only allowed to speak in a specific way, that is, the politically correct way, in order not to offend ethnic minorities, racial minorities, the disabled, etc, and offense is defined solely by the perceived feelings of the receiving end regardless what your intentions are. As a consequence you need to segregate different groups of people in to racial/ethnic/gender categories, they don't call it segregation but it is segregation. Equity means not the equality before the law, or equality of opportunities, but the equality of outcome, so if there are 13.4% black population in the US, it means organizations such as FSF must has 13.4% percentage of black people (in fact black critical theorist) in older of have them well represented. Diversity, Inclusion, Equity, the Trinity of the woke cult, along with the postmodernist obsession with power, the hostility towards science(they call it the Eurocentric white males tool for dominance), reason, enlightenment valves, liberalism, characterizes pretty much all of the woke ideology. It is the same cult that attempts (often by means of coercion and intimidation) to infiltrate every single organizations of the world, and has been successful in doing so in the media, the Democratic Party in the US and the the Labour Party in the UK , ACLU, well knowned academic institutions like the Harvard, Oxford, Princeton. Now it's trying to infiltrate the free software movement through the same tactics.

It is suggested to watch James Lindsay elaboration on this matter: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3jLNgLABuTw

And the documentary of Evergreen, about how the Trinity of woke works in practice.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Wny9TstEM

@merely 打算实名上网吗？

@Chloev root和换rom的作用大体有三类，第一类作用是让你的设备变得更流畅，可易操作，第二类作用是让你的设备变得更美观，第三类作用是防止手机厂商和流氓软件收集信息。在Android系统发展的早期，各手机厂商自带的系统常常很卡很慢，功能很少，有些还比较丑，因此刷机和Root的人就很多，因为这样做能加大流畅度和增加功能性，可是随着各大定制系统功能的完善和流畅度的提高，以及厂商对刷机限制的增多，出于这种考量刷机root的人越来越少。但是，定制系统虽然更完善了，更流畅了，更好看了，甚至也有了一套阻止流氓软件收集信息的方法，但是这并不妨碍这些定制系统本身收集个人信息。因此，依然有一部分人为了第三种作用而root和刷机。当然了，还有人只是喜欢尝鲜，还有人喜欢简洁，还有人比较偏好谷歌的设计风格，但这类人算是很少的。

## 在Richard Stallman 事件中我的观点
<br>
我此前关注的主要是Richard Stallman对于自由软件的看法，对于他的私生活并没有太多关注，但近期围绕着Richard Stallman是否可以重返FSF(自由软件基金)的争论使得我开始主动地去了解这一问题的始末。根据我在互联网上搜寻到的资料，我可以概括出以下几点内容。
<br>
1.Richard Stallman 创立了FSF(自由软件基金)，是自由软件运动的发起者。
<br>
2.在2019年一场与爱泼斯坦有关的事件中，Richard Stallman受到压力被迫从FSF辞职。
<br>
3.2021年三月，Richard Stallman宣布他将重返FSF，这一举动再次受到了抵制，包括 Mozilla 和 the Tor Project在内的1500人发布了一张联名公开信，信中主要有两个诉求，第一个诉求是解散整个现有的FSF委员会 ，第二个诉求是解除Richard Stallman的一切领导地位，并且禁止他日后加入任何领导层，包括Gnu。此外，该信还要求Richard Stallman 不再参加与自由软件，技术道德，数据权利相关的活动，并退出技术社区。(https://rms-open-letter.github.io/)
<br>
## Richard Stallman 所受到的指控:
<br>
Richard Stallman受到的指控围绕在两个内容上：他在MIT内部邮件中的言论，以及他的个人私生活，主要是认为他言行不当，并在私下中对女性有骚扰行为。
<br>
值得注意的一点是，对于Richard Stallman指控的具体内容一直在变，在2019年9月14日Vice对此展开报道的时候，所用的标题是《Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'》(著名的计算机科学家Richard Stallman将爱泼斯坦的受害者描述成'完全自愿的')(https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)，然而几天后Techcrunch在报道这一事件时，标题就变成了
《Computer scientist Richard Stallman, who defended Jeffrey Epstein, resigns from MIT CSAIL and the Free Software Foundation》(替爱泼斯坦辩护的计算机科学家Richard Stallman从MIT CSAIL和FSF辞职)(https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/16/computer-scientist-richard-stallman-who-defended-jeffrey-epstein-resigns-from-mit-csail-and-the-free-software-foundation/)，到了Mozilla 和 the Tor Project的公开信中，指控则变成了"He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety" (Richard Stallman证明了他是一个厌女主义者，健全主义者，恐同主义者，此外还有着其它的严重不当言行)
<br>
这些标题给人的感觉就是Richard Stallman在替爱泼斯坦的恶行辩护，认为爱泼斯坦的受害者是自愿被爱泼斯坦害的。真的是这样吗？
<br>
要弄明白这一点，我们需要找到原始材料，看看Richard Stallman倒底说了什么，原始材料可以在 vice 这篇报道的底部找到，是MIT内部的邮件记录。(https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing)
<br>
事情的起因是，2019年，有人发现MIT暗中接受了爱泼斯坦的捐赠，而爱泼斯坦是一个著名的性罪犯，因此，MIT CSAIL的人员便在内部邮件的讨论串中对此展开了抗议，在讨论的过程中，话题发生了转向，内容变成了已故的MIT教授Marvin Minsky是否也性侵犯了爱泼斯坦的受害者，一些人认为Marvin Minsky的确性侵犯了了爱泼斯坦的受害者，理由是Virginia Louise声明爱泼斯坦指使了她与Marvin Minsky性交(当时她只有17岁)，而Richard Stallman则不这么认为，他认为"性侵犯"一词过于模糊和随意，而且"侵犯"意味着强迫与暴力，Stallman设想了许多场景，他认为最可能的情况是Virginia是自愿与Marvin Minsky性交的，没有证据表明她受到了强迫。有人向Stallman质疑，Virginia未满18岁，还没有到能够自己做决定的法定年龄，Stallman则回应道，用年龄或地理位置来判定是不是强奸是十分荒诞的。事情的经过大概是这样，对于这一事件，中英文的维基百科都有简要的描述，大体上与原始的邮件记录相符。
<br>
对于原始材料分析后，我们可以看到，首先，Richard Stallman辩护的对象是Marvin Minsky，而不是爱泼斯坦。其次，Richard Stallman 的确主张Virginia是自愿的，不过这里的自愿指的是Virginia对Marvin Minsky的自愿(究竟是不是自愿，不在当前的讨论范围内，因为现在讨论的问题是Richard Stallman对该事件的反应，而非该事件的详细过程)，他认为，既然是自愿的，那么不论两者的年龄差距有多大，不论当事人有没有到达法定的能独立做出决定的年龄，双方就可以性交。
<br>
如果Richard Stallman真的认为Virginia是自愿的，那么Richard Stallman实际上就是在认为自愿优先于保护。我不认同他的这种看法，并且能想出许多反向观点，例如未成年人的自愿很可能是缺少考虑的自愿，而且经济上的困境可能会导致一种名为自愿实为被迫的情况，但是我并不认为拥有Stallman这种观点的人就一定道德败坏，而且，我认为解决这种争端的最佳方案是鼓励沟通与辩论，而不是让少数人或少数团体一锤定音。
<br>
如果Richard Stallman并不真的认为Virginia是自愿的，即Richard Stallman根本是在口是心非，他明明知道Virginia是被迫的，却装作认为她是自愿的，Stallman所说的自愿原则是骗人的，他自己都不相信这一点。这种可能性也不是不存在，但这是一个不可证伪的假设，而且缺少依据。因为Richard Stallman很早就持有类似的主张，而不是突然改变了想法。例如,2003年英国曾试图制定一个新的审查法律，该法律将禁止任何关于儿童与青少年的性描写，并且禁止鼓励14岁以下的人参与性活动，Richard Stallman则认为14岁就应该可以性交了，青春期的性交值得鼓励。
<br>
由此可见，媒体对Richard Stallman的报道确实有不少扭曲，Richard Stallman辩护的是Marvin Minsky，到了媒体的嘴里就成了辩护爱泼斯坦，Vice最初报道的标题就有误导之嫌，随后的Techcrunch更是直接把标题改成了"Stallman替爱泼斯坦辩护" 。到了 Mozilla 和 the Tor Project，对Richard Stallman的指控则发展成了"一个厌女主义者，健全主义者，恐同主义者"。Richard Stallman说媒体对他报道不实，确实是有根据的。
<br>
对于Richard Stallman的另一指控就是他骚扰女性，这一指控的来源应该是MIT学生Selam G 在Medium上的一篇文章(https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-appendix-a-a7e41e784f88)，Selam G可能是汉族人，因为她在文中提到了她母亲教育她要"吃苦"，Selam G在这篇文章中写道，Richard Stallman经常对女学生表白，有一次他在吃完饭后突然就对一个女学生说，如果她不和自己一起出去的话，他就会自杀。此外，他还把床垫放在办公室的地板上，把门大开，许多的女学生因此都绕道而行。这篇文章的最大问题就在于没有证据，正如作者自己承认的："In this section, I acknowledge that I do not have as many photos, emails, or written records as evidence. I do, however, have witnesses." 这篇文章中所描述的事件并没有客观事实为证，甚至都不是作者的一手经历，而是她的朋友告诉她的。因此，就我目前看到的材料而言，认为Richard Stallman骚扰女性的这一指控是很可疑的。
<br>
## 开除Richard Stallman会带来哪些影响？
<br>
如果我们采用 Mozilla 之类的机构和媒体的官方说法，开除Richard Stallman是一个正义之举，因为Richard Stallman是一个不道德的人，而思想左倾，一身正气的左派学生和Mozilla这样富有觉悟的公司则是道德的化身，好人打败了坏人，结果自然是正义的胜利，而且，据说自由软件运动之所以不温不火，就是因为Richard Stallman这种人把外人吓跑了，如果FSF的领导层换成正义斗士，自由软件运动就很可能遍地开花。
<br>
我不这么认为，相反，正如身份政治在西方的实际影响是减少了公民的自由，使得工人运动四分五裂一样，同样的这一套左翼觉悟政治会毁掉自由软件运动。Richard Stallman被封杀的实际作用是使人事权转移到封杀了他的那一群人手中，Richard Stallman下台后，取代他的下一位领袖势必要小心警慎，因为那一群人能封杀掉Stallman，当然就也能封杀掉他，人事权是一项很大的权力，一但这种权力被一群无法追责，自命正义的人士所掌控，这些群体便会利用这种权力强制施行自己的意志。如果大家认真地阅读了那篇公开信的话，便会发现他们的诉求并不仅仅是封杀掉Richard Stallman，而是撤掉整个领导层，撤掉之后换上什么人呢？恐怕是他们眼中的"自己人"。也许新的领导层会很"多元"，有黑人，有女人，有变性者，有残疾人，可是他们信奉的将是同一种意识形态。
<br>
觉悟左派的意识形态可以用三个词来概括:"Diversity, Inclision, Equity"(多元，包容，均等)(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3jLNgLABuTw)，所谓多元，指的是身份的多元，例如性别，种族，健康状况的多元，而不是思想的多元；所谓包容，是指人们说话时要遵守政治正确，少数群体需要"安全空间"，不能听到可能会冒犯到自己的言论；所谓均等，是指结果平等而不是法律面前人人平等，例如美国有百分之几的黑人，自由软件基金会就应该有百分之几的黑人代表。与"多元，包容，均等"三位一体相随的，还有福柯式的权力本质论，认为代表压迫势力的权力结构无形中深深地植根于社会的每一个角落，每一个例都体现了"系统化的压迫"，各种"ist"和" phobia"(Racist, Misogynist, Homophobia, Islamphobia) 都在相方设法地迫害弱势群体，因此他们需要觉悟左派的正义斗士们保护。
<br>
这种意识形态是与自由软件的精神相冲突的
<br>
自由软件的核心思想就是任何人都可以不受限制地自由使用、复制、研究、修改和分发软件，可是这意味着"极端右翼分子"，"白人至上主义者"，" 仇女主义者"，"恐同主义者"，"法西斯主义者" 也能自由使用、复制、研究、修改和分发这些软件，怎么办？要不要禁止这些人的自由？右翼分子还利用去中心化技术在Mastodon上散播无法审查的仇恨言论，会对弱势群体和少数族裔造成难以估量的伤害，要不要强迫Mastodon的使用者通过意识形态测试，或者说要从政府那里申请许可？纽约时报的Kevin Roose说加密通讯软件加剧了虚假信息的传播，所以我们要不要设计一种替政府留后门的加密算法，以帮助他们实现正义？Master和Black会激起黑人的痛苦回忆，要不要禁止这两个词出现在源码中？也许自由这一概念本身就源起于西方，代表了压迫的西方霸权主义，帝国主义，欧洲中心主义，应该把它换成别的什么名字，以体现"多元"，"平等"，"宽容"？
<br>
自由软件，说到底，关注的是人们的自由，而自由意味着所有人的自由，正如罗莎·卢森堡所言，自由是“其他人的自由”。这里说的"其他人"当然就包括了与你想法不同的人，你讨厌的人，甚至坏人。如果一群人认为像Stallman这样的人不配拥有自由，甚至仅仅是没有积极反对Stallmam的人也不配拥有自由，他们又会认为谁配拥有自由呢？这些人还会把自由当做自己的目标吗？自由软件运动还会是自由软件运动吗？还是说变成一场"觉悟运动"呢？(有人会争辩说没有人禁止Stallman的自由，可是如果一个人仅仅因为自己的言论，或者仅仅因为没有做出"正确"的表态，就要丢掉自己的职位，他就是没有自由的。而且Richard Stallman算是知名人物，封杀他起到的是一种杀鸡儆猴的效果，如果他能被封杀，更何况那些不如他那么知名的人呢？)
<br>
西方当代的觉悟政治就像病毒一样，入侵了它能渗透的每一领域：学术界，媒体行业，科研领域，左翼政党，平权运动……每当要入侵一个新领域时，它都会寻找该领域的问题，然后宣称这体现了"系统化的压迫"，再以此为理由把自己的那一派人安插进去，连基督教和无神论都不能幸免，如果自由软件运动被其渗透，我相信在短时间内它就会变成人们无法认识的模样。
<br>
## 替Richard Stallman的辩护
<br>
正如我在之前已经说过的，媒体对Richard Stallman进行了不实的报道，在2019年的那场事件中，他并没有替爱泼斯坦进行辩护，而是就Marvin Minsky受到的指控提出了反面观点，他的依据是自愿即可性交，即便未到法定年龄，这是与他此前的言论相一致的，尽管在该事件之后他又该变了看法。 我不认同他的观点，但是他的观点在一个自由的社会中应当有存在的余地，辩论和沟通才是问题的解决之道。
<br>
我能想象出来，实际上我已经多次看到这样的一种反驳，那就是：Richard Stallman说的轻巧，而是他不知道自己的言论在客观对受害者会造成多大的伤害，这些伤害虽然是间接的，却同样地不可容忍。换句话说，如果某种言论在"客观"上会损害正义的事业，这种言论就不配拥有自由。
<br>
说这些话的人从来都没有想到过，同样的逻辑也可以适用他们自己。
<br>
二战期间的英国，一个记者在论坛报上发表了一篇对苏联进行抨击的文章，引发了刊然大波，许多人愤怒地写信，斥责他是傻瓜和骗子，还暗示道，即便他知道自己所说的是真相也应该缄口不语，因为这会损害英苏关系。乔治·奥威尔注意到了这一现象，为此特地写了一篇文章，他写道：
<br>
"如果你把世界划分为甲方和乙方两个阵营，假定甲方代表了进步，而乙方代表了反动，有人会说，任何对甲方不利的事实都不应该披露。但在说出这番话之前，我们得意识到它将引发的后果。我们所指的反动是什么意思？我想大家都同意纳粹德国是最卑劣的反动派，或最卑劣的反对派之一。而在英国，战争期间给纳粹的宣传机器提供了最多素材的人正是那些告诉我们批评苏联是在“客观上”支持法西斯的人。我不是指那些处于反战阶段的共产党人，我指的是所有的左翼人士。渐渐地，纳粹电台从英国左翼报刊中获得的材料比从右翼报刊中获得的还要多。情况就只能是这样，因为对于英国制度的严肃抨击就主要来自于左翼报刊。每一次对贫民窟或社会不平等的揭露，每一次对保守党领袖的攻击，每一次对大英帝国的谴责，都是送给戈培尔的一份礼物。而且这未必是一份薄礼，因为德国有关“英国财阀统治”的宣传在中立国产生了深远的影响，尤其是在战争的早期。"
<br>
也就是说，英国的左翼人士对英国的批评，在客观上反而成为了纳粹的宣传材料，有利于法西斯主义，因此，按照这种逻辑，左翼人士他们自己就不应该对英国有任何的批评。
<br>
这一逻辑也可以适用于当代，比方说，美国的左翼和主流媒体长期以来把美国表述成一个无可救药，带有原罪的种族主义国家，纽约时报甚至专门组织了一个1619计划，说美国的建国时期是1619而非1776，独立战争是为了阻止黑奴的解放。因此，当有人指控中国共产党在新疆建立集中营，强迫劳动时，外交部的华春莹可以轻松地列举出美国的劣行，并且指出一个带有原罪的种族主义国家没有资格对其它国家指手画脚。这是不是证明了美国的左翼和主流媒体应该闭嘴呢？
<br>
我们知道，共产主义在20世纪犯下的罪行罄竹难书，发生在共产主义政权下的大规模屠杀累计杀死了近1亿人，但是当代的美国左翼有多少人反对共产主义呢？2020年发生了轰轰烈烈的BLM运动，其创立人之一 Patrisse Cullors却自称"Trained Marxist"，BLM在网上列出的目标包括了瓦解西方核心家庭结构和推翻资本主义(https://web.archive.org/web/20200408020723/https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/) (https://uk.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund)，这些人推到了华盛顿的雕像，却没有动西雅图的列宁雕像，这是不是意味着应该把BLM列为恐怖组织呢？而美国几乎所有的主流媒体都曾赞助过BLM，他们是不是也该被诛连？这些媒体还鼓吹过伊拉克战争，这些做法在客观上造成的伤害难以估量。美国人是不是应该因此找这些媒体算帐？
<br>
但是这些人被没有被算账，因为他们生活在一个自由社会，自由社会支持人们拥有异端思想的权利，也支持人们拥有犯错的权力，任何社会，只要有人存在，异端思想就会存在，有害的思想也会存在，问题在于如何应对这些思想，正是不同的应对方式才体现了自由与不自由之间的区别，在一个自由的社会中，真理是在不同的思想的碰撞中出现的，是在理性的辩论和对话中诞生的，而不是一小撮自命不凡的"正义人士"自上而下地规定的。也许有害的思想会利用这种自由进行传播，但正如约翰·弥尔顿在《论出版自由》中说到的那样：
<br>
1."我们知道，在这个世界中，善与恶几乎是无法分开的。关于善的知识和关于恶的知识之间有着千丝万缕的联系和千万种难以识别的相似之处"
2."如果一种善是隐秘而不能见人的；没有活动，也没有气息，从不敢大胆地站出来和对手见面，而只是在一场赛跑中偷偷地溜掉；这种善我是不敢恭维的。"
2."善在恶的面前如果只是一个出世未久的幼童，只是因为不知道恶诱惑堕落者所允诺的最大好处而抛弃了恶，那便是一种无知的善，而不是一种真纯的善。它的洁白无瑕只是外加的一层白色而已。"
<br>
他还说到：
<br>
"如果对成年人每一种行为的善恶问题都加以规定、限制和强迫，那末美德就将徒具空名，善行也就无须赞扬了，严肃公正和节制也就没有好处了。有许多人抱怨天意不应当让亚当逆命。这真是蠢话！上帝赋给他理智就是叫他有选择的自由，因为理智就是选择。不然的话他就会变成一个做作的亚当，木偶戏中的亚当。"
<br>
也正如乔治·奥威尔在动物农场的序文《出版的自由》中所说到的：
<br>
"思想自由一直是西方文明的突出特征之一，如果它有意义的话，它意味着每个人都应该有权利表达和出版他认为是真相的内容，只要这些内容不会以某种确凿无疑的方式伤害别人。"
<br>
替Richard Stallman辩护的理由可以有很多，例如说他技术过硬，聪明过人，是一个天才，他开创了自由软件运动，使其发展了起来，等等等等，但我想这些说法都没有触及最关键的一点，那就是：
<br>
在一个真正自由的社会中，一个人不应该因为表达自己的真实想法(不论它有多么愚蠢)，或者是因为他的言论可能会冒犯他人，或是因为他的言论会对某人造成间接的"客观"伤害，而失去他的工作。维护和建设这样的一种自由社会，才是自由软件的目的所在。也只有在这样一种自由的社会中，自由软件运动才能成长起来。而要捍卫这种自由，对试图封杀Richard Stallman的势力展开反击就是第一步。
<br>
(我只是最近才开始关注这一事件，因此阅读的材料可能不全面，如果有人可以给出不同的证据，或者是反面的证据，可以在下面发出来，我会据此修改我的观点，如果有人能提供更全面的正面证据，也同样欢迎)

@freemo Part of the reasons why a small group people of authoritarian instincts were able to cancel and therefore terrorize the many is that the former group of people are well organized and highly conformist, while the later group of people often atomized, devilded. To claim back our territory, we too should form united alliances of communities and organizations.

@ianmacd I think the crucial point in such cases is that whether these allegations are supported by objective facts or merely from someone's unfalsifiable account. The problem with cancel culture is that If all that matters are someone's lived experiences or someone's perceived feelings of offense that can be claimed by anyone, yet are unable to be proven by evidence, then anyone can be criminalized. I think we should assume one's innocence until he's proven guilty , instead of criminalizing everyone for the possible harm he might have done until he's proven innocent.

Moreover, even the allegations made against him, in this case Richard Stallman are true (e.g. leering at a woman's chest, asking a woman for a dinner by saying he'd kill him self if he was refused), I don't think they would be sufficient reasons to "remove" him from his job and his membership from FSF, for he didn't use his power and position to force anyone to have dinner with him or force them to show their chest in front of him.(prove me if I'm wrong)

What I do sense in the attempt to cancel him is a tendency towards authoritarianism, that is, if someone makes you uncomfortable, hurts your feelings, then even if they didn't cause harms that are obvious to all, you should have the power to remove him, deplatfom him, make him lose the job. Given what's been done by identity politics and woke movements, and given that the foucauldian idea underlying much of the broad Critical Social Justice movement, that all that matters is power. It's doubtful whether this is a sincere effort to improve the condition of Free software, or simply another attempt to infect yet another field with their woke politics, to capture Foss communities in the same way they took over the Campus, the Media, and organizations such as the ACLU.

once censorship is legitimized, it will not stay one way round, it will come to both sides eventually.

@mifanwo
浅薄的一代。
专制制度不会因为民众浅薄而崩溃，相反更加稳定，民主制度就不一样了，民众的肤浅而愚蠢会从底下瓦解民主政治。

@acer 《庄子》这本书对历史的记载不可靠，而且《盗跖 》这篇多被认为是伪作。

我认为现在的西方主流媒体不堪入目，低智、偏执、思想贫乏、立场先行，最重要的是丧失了基本的诚实，这一点在川普上台后尤其明显，川普下台后也依然如此，川普很可能只是暴露了这些媒体的腐化。

作为替代品，我推荐一些与"正统思想"相对的另类刊物，如果有对英美政治感兴趣的，大可以离开丧失信誉的主流媒体，而把目光转向这些另类刊物。

1. Spiked (https://www.spiked-online.com/)

Spiked是一家英国的左翼报刊，与热衷于身份政治主流左翼不同的是，该报刊依然坚持阶级政治，主张普世价值和启蒙思想，并且把自由放在很高的位置，该刊的总编Brendan O'Neill自称是Libertarian Marxist(自由意志马克思主义者)，是一个重视自由传统的英国左派。

2.Quillette (https://quillette.com)

Quillette是来自澳大利亚的一家刊物，由记者Claire Lehmann创立，Quillette一词源自法语，寓意着埋在泥土中柳条会生根发芽，该刊的宗旨是为人们提供一个抨击左翼正统的环境，该刊主要关注的是言论自由与身份政治。

3.Reason (https://reason.com)

Reason是美国的一家自由意志主义刊物，其关注的重点自然也就是自由，不光是经济自由，还有政治自由与思想自由，创立于1958年，在我列举的四家刊物中，它是历史最悠久的，Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Szasz, and Thomas Sowell 等重量级人物都曾为之撰稿。

4.UnHerd (https://unherd.com)

UnHerd来自于英国，是一个年轻的杂志，它的撰稿人既有左派出身的人物，也有右翼人士，该杂志的目标是以新颖大胆的思想打破群体思维的禁锢，该杂志主要关注的是思想观念和文化。

这些另类刊物虽然规模不大，但它们关注的都是切实存在的问题，而且尊重事实和理性，它们言语平实，不用故弄玄虚的行话，与主流媒体的情绪煽动和空洞无物形成了鲜明对比，这些另类刊物的阅读价值远胜于主流媒体。

有一位朋友质疑卫报的这篇文章是否真的主张把言论置于政府和巨头的控制之下，抑制去中心化技术，这是我的回答，由于原本的讨论串并不公开，所以我再重新发一遍：

问：我希望你能解释一下，原文中到底哪里暗示“要打击"仇恨言论" 和 "纳粹主义"，就要把言论置于政府和巨头的控制之下，这些去中心化平台是不允许存在的。”？

答：如果你觉得原嘟文的暗示还不够明显的话，我愿意再补充一些：

The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one owns them. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years.

" The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends "

“Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.

But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.

“You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.

This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. After the far right-friendly social media site Gab encountered hosting problems and app store bans, it rebuilt itself on Mastodon’s software, despite determined opposition from the platform’s creators and users.

文章提到，假如用户使用的是去中心化平台，这些平台就不会因为外部的施压而封杀"问题用户"。 (去中心化保护问题用户)

文章还提到，"极端主义者"长年以来一直在推行在研发这类技术。(研发去中心化和p2p等技术的是坏人)

文章还提到，因为这些技术无法被监控，无法被传唤，极端主义者就可以利用这些技术进行宣传和组织。(使用这些技术的是坏人)

问：我还看到了：
"a double-edged sword"
"The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends"

为什么你看到卫报提到 "can’t be surveiled" ，就觉得它是在强调censorship的重要性？还有，下面讲的这些利用技术为恶的难道不是事实？为了不被闭嘴而转行研发这些技术的确实有一大部分人是极端人士啊。

答："can't be surveiled 来自于该文对Bevensee报告的引用，该文在其后又加入"This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. " ，再联系前文的"While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities" ，可推导出该文主张把这些人困在中心化的平台中。的确，极端分子利用技术为恶是事实，但首先，我们要把重点集中在有权有势的人用利用技术所行的恶，也就是政府和技术寡头所行之恶，其次，任何技术都有好处有坏处，但总体而言，我认为去中心化的技术是利大于弊的技术，再者，在去中心化技术出现以前，就已经有过印刷术，电报，电话等传播信息的技术，这些技术当然也曾经被坏人使用，但我不认为应该禁止印刷术，电报，电话。即使没有任何技术，只要人有一张嘴，就有可能传播坏思想，但我认为不应该因此封住所有人的嘴。最后，要想完全扼杀人们的恶行，只有靠扼杀人们的自由意志，只有没有自由的地方，完全的安全才是可能的，但这种安全是无意义的。

对于该报道的内容，也许人们会有不同的理解，我没有时间遂条反驳，所以放出原文供大家自行判断，有意的朋友可以翻译这篇文章：

Far-right supporters move to open source to evade censorship

A suicide and a strange bitcoin bequest have opened a window on to the new frontier of extremist online media

Fri 12 Mar 2021 10.10 GMT

On 8 December last year, a Frenchman called Laurent Bachelier gave away a total of 28.5 bitcoins – worth $556,000 – to 22 people. On the same day, he killed himself.

In suicide notes written in French and English, he explained that the burden of illness (he suffered from a neurological pain disorder) and his loss of hope for the future had led him to despair. After railing against the decline of western civilization and attacks on free speech, he wrote that he had decided to “leave his modest wealth to certain causes and people”.

Allusions to the “14 words” slogan used by white supremacists offered a clue as to the causes he favored. The beneficiaries of Bachelier’s largesse were all either prominent far-right agitators, or platforms offering them a home. The donations immediately attracted the attention of cybersecurity researchers, extremism watchers and law enforcement officers.

Bachelier gave the video platform BitChute two bitcoins (in January, the price of a single bitcoin ranged between $30,000 and $40,000). The neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer got one, the French Holocaust denier Vincent Reynouard got 1.5, and the US white nationalist celebrity Nick Fuentes, an attendee of the riots in Charlottesville and the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol in Washington, received 13.5 – worth over $450,000.

A Guardian investigation can now reveal that one of the lesser-known beneficiaries is a YouTube influencer of sorts – one with a history of promoting far-right political ideology. Luke Smith, now a Florida resident, maintains a monetized YouTube channel with 109,000 subscribers. He received at least one bitcoin from Bachelier, valued at the time of writing at just over $30,000.

It’s possible that Bachelier saw in Luke Smith a like mind and a shared purpose. Beyond their common ground in far-right politics, each saw technology as a weapon in their war against liberal, tolerant societies.

Like Bachelier, Smith eschews so-called proprietary software – like MacOS or Microsoft Word – and communications tools like Facebook or Twitter, built and controlled by Silicon Valley firms. Instead, Smith is an advocate for so-called “open source software” – the kind that makes it possible to use, copy, redistribute and modify software legally. And recently, he has been promoting communications platforms that might help extremists to operate beyond the reach of censorship – and even the law.

What Smith preaches: a war against the modern world

The man being funded by Bachelier’s donation likes to present himself as a latter-day Ted Kaczynski – the so-called Unabomber, whose infamous manifesto Smith has at times earnestly recommended to his followers.

Kaczynski, a terrorist still imprisoned for a 17-year bombing campaign that killed three and injured 23, was motivated by a hatred of the modern technological world. In recent years, his apocalyptic account of an industrial civilization on the brink of collapse has resonated with rightwing extremists – including the Christchurch mosque murderer, Brenton Tarrant – who describe themselves as “eco-fascists”.

In 2019, Smith said in a video he wanted to live in a “Unabomber cabin” to escape the surveillance and censorship which he believes is especially aimed at the far right. In a post on his blog in the same year – since deleted – he described the modern world as one “where your every action is watched, if you use proprietary software and communicate only via social media services”.

 The fantasy of the US splintering along ethnic lines has long been entertained by white nationalists

Public records show that Smith moved to a rural property that year near Mayo, in northern Florida, whose title is held by a family member. Since then, most of his videos have been recorded in and around the property.

In various videos and podcasts, Smith rehearses other ideas associated with the far right. He advocates breaking the US up – potentially into racial enclaves “maybe [by] dividing by states, maybe [by] dividing by ethnic groups”. The fantasy of the US splintering along ethnic lines has long been entertained by white nationalists, who have taken to calling themselves the “Balk Right”.

This is not the only place where Smith touches on ideas associated with white nationalism. In a 2018 podcast, he offers an account of human history that relies on arguments made in The 10,000 Year Explosion, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white nationalist book. Smith also directed readers to websites like radishmag, where readers are asked to “reconsider” slavery and lynching is painted in a positive light.

Luke Smith did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Taken together, these beliefs come back to another far-right splinter ideology: the neoreactionary movement, which in the last decade has been enjoying an online renaissance of sorts, especially among some of Silicon Valley’s tech elite.

The birth of the neoreactionary movement

The neoreactionary movement traces its history to 2007, when the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Curtis Yarvin started a popular blog under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. He used it to attack liberalism, democracy and equality, discussed racial hierarchy in the euphemistic terms of “human biodiversity”, and counseled followers to simply detach themselves from the society ruled by the institutions of liberalism.

Journalist Corey Pein wrote an account of the culture of Silicon Valley which, in part, examines the influence that Yarvin’s ideas had in the tech world. Pein says that while neoreactionary ideology is somewhat incoherent, what is consistent is the members’ commitment to extricate themselves from liberal democracy. This “exit” doctrine was influential among some Silicon Valley leaders, including the tech billionaire Peter Thiel, who once memorably said: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”

Smith follows the same ideological path. His principal outlet for these ideas is his YouTube channel, where he offers tutorials on how to use austere open source software applications, encouraging viewers to detach themselves from Silicon Valley’s products. The channel is both relatively successful and lucrative, and followers rate him highly. His videos have had more than 18.7m views,meaning he could earn anywhere up to $31,100 a year from his channel on current numbers.

 Smith has been pushing users in the direction of decentralized social media platforms in the so-called 'fediverse'

YouTube confirmed that Smith’s channel remained in their partner program, meaning that he continues to earn money from the channel, but that they had removed one video, featuring racial slurs, which the Guardian had asked about.

Media representatives for Google responded to requests for comment with their
own request for clarification of questions about Smith’s channel and
their community guidelines, but ultimately offered no comment.

Smith has lately been pushing users in the direction of decentralized, resilient social media platforms in the so-called “fediverse”, a network of independent social media sites that communicate with one another, and allow people to interact across different sites. This could allow far-right activists to operate in ways that make them very difficult to shut down.

Though many prominent programmers and advocates in both the wider open source software movement and the fediverse are motivated by progressive, anti-corporate or anti-authoritarian political ideals, now the tools they have created might be used to shelter far-right extremists from the consequences of their hate speech and organizing.

Manipulating the open source movement for nefarious ends

The free and open source software movement has attracted many people with progressive politics, who have used it to help provide digital tools to those with few resources, to breathe new life into hardware that might otherwise have been added to a growing mountain of e-waste, or to move public institutions from Barcelona to Brasília away from dependence on expensive software.

However, experts say that it is not surprising that someone like Smith would be tolerated or even welcomed by some elements of open source culture.

Megan Squire is a professor of computer science at Elon University who has published research on both the far right and open source software communities. She says that “the dominant open source culture historically has been one of extreme misogyny, unfounded meritocracy, toxicity and abuse of everyone,” and that Smith is one of those resisting efforts to change that culture.

In recent years, and especially since the Gamergate movement intensified scrutiny on toxicity in tech, some responded to the blatant sexism, antisemitism and racism online with codes of conduct after realizing this behavior was actually starting to hurt them (Squires says they couldn’t recruit and retain developers).

The provision of safer online spaces for marginalized groups is a large part of the motivation of many of the people who have created the underlying software. On those platforms, tools for moderation and easy ways to flag sensitive content are baked in by design. But Smith is among a small group who repeatedly rail against the introduction of such codes of conduct within open source projects.

 Some open source communications platforms do away with the need for servers by implementing a 'peer-to-peer' network

In a video recorded a week after the Capitol riots, when social media bans were removing rightwingers from Donald Trump down to prevent further violence, Smith said that those who wanted to bypass censorship should use the Twitter-like platform, Pleroma.

Open source software like Pleroma, Mastodon and Matrix reproduce the functions of Twitter, allowing users to send out brief messages to followers. But their implementation and structure are much more decentralized, allowing anyone to set up their own platform on their own server, after which they can join up, or “federate”, with other such communities.

Some open source communications platforms go a step beyond this, and do away with the need for servers altogether by implementing a “peer-to-peer” network. PeerTube, for example, allows users to browse and watch videos in a similar way to YouTube, but instead of streaming it to users from a central server, each user watching a video acts as a relay point.

The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one ownsthem. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years.

 The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends

“Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.

But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.

“You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.

This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. After the far right-friendly social media site Gab encountered hosting problems and app store bans, it rebuilt itself on Mastodon’s software, despite determined opposition from the platform’s creators and users.

Beyond Gab’s ambiguous place in the fediverse, the Guardian found dozens of servers using peer-to-peer, open source tools, which were either exclusively or disproportionately devoted either to far-right politics, or to conspiracy theories that mainstream social media services have previously cracked down on, including coronavirus denialism, “incel” culture and neo-Nazism.

With the far right under pressure from mainstream social media companies and internet hosts, this may be just the beginning.

But experts say that despite their recurrent complaints about Silicon Valley’s platforms, extremists will maintain their foothold in the mainstream for as long as they can. As Squire says of Smith’s internet activity: “Why is he still on YouTube? Because that’s where the eyeballs are, that’s where the money is.”

• In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is at 800-273-8255 or chat for support. You can also text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis text line counselor. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at www.befrienders.org

@376668346

1.你说得有道理，这几个人的主页我都看了，他们的确是在宣传种族主义和纳粹主义，管理员甚至自豪地自称自己是种族主义者和纳粹主义者，不过这些人用的是二次元头像，时间线上多是二次元图片和牢骚，还有一些种族主义的侮辱词汇，例如nigger，我搜索racist的结果有30多个，大都支持种族歧视，但是Nazist和Nazism 的结果只有一个，这些人有的在头像旁边加上了纳粹符号，有的转一些歌颂纳粹主义的表情包，有的发一些期待纳粹征服世界之类的话，我认为的确可以说这个实例是一个宣扬种族主义和纳粹的实例，但其用户对纳粹主义停留在表面的符号宗拜(不排除我了解的不够多的情况)，我认为这类的纳粹主义者还是应该和另一类纳粹主义者相区分，即组织严密，思想同质的纳粹主义的，但宽泛而言，可以说这是一个种族主义和纳粹主义实例。

2.我认为屏蔽是正确的做法，如果这些的确在进行违法活动，公权力介入也是应该的，当然了，我们并不生活在同一个国家，也管不了别国的事，我们自己的问题更多，更复杂。

3.The technical details are perhaps less important than the practical effect: no one has authority over these platforms: no one owns them. While governments and users can place pressure on the big social media companies to ban problematic users or communities, for better or worse, no one can stop anyone creating their own servers or peer-to-peer networks.

These technologies, then, are effectively uncensorable. According to a report by Emmi Bevensee, the co-founder of research consultancy Rebellious Data and the social media monitoring tool SMAT, extremists have been advocating, and even developing them, for years.

" The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends "

“Every marginalized community knows what it’s like to be systematically deplatformed”, says Bevensee, who uses non-binary pronouns, pointing to the way in which groups such as sex workers have adopted platforms like Mastodon after finding themselves unable to advertise their services.

But as Bevensee’s report shows, peer-to-peer platforms are a double-edged sword. “The reason I want it as a trans anti-fascist is the same reason that a Nazi wants it; we just have opposite ends,” they explain.

“You know who really doesn’t understand it? The FBI,” Bevensee adds: “we’re talking about a technology that can’t be subpoenaed. It can’t be surveiled” and, in order to carry out remote surveillance of private chats, “you would have to back door every single device in the world”.

This opens the way for extremists to propagandize and organize on platforms that are beyond the reach of legal authorities and tech giants alike. After the far right-friendly social media site Gab encountered hosting problems and app store bans, it rebuilt itself on Mastodon’s software, despite determined opposition from the platform’s creators and users.

文章提到，假如用户使用的是去中心化平台，这些平台就不会因为外部的施压而封杀"问题用户"。 (去中心化保护问题用户)

文章还提到，"极端主义者"长年以来一直在推行在研发这类技术。(研发去中心化和p2p等技术的是坏人)

文章还提到，因为这些技术无法被监控，无法被传唤，极端主义者就可以利用这些技术进行宣传和组织。(使用这些技术的是坏人)

我看到了Double edged sword，但总体而言这篇文章对于去中心化等技术表示的是敌意。

@376668346
这里有两个问题，第一个问题是纳粹实例的标准是什么，在什么样的情况下我们可以认为一个实例是纳粹实例？我的看法是当一个实例将纳粹主义确立为官方意识形态或组织原则时，这个实例便可以被认为是纳粹实例。我刚才在搜索引擎上搜索了poa.st + nazi，并没有找到poa.st是纳粹实例的证据，也许是因为该实例关闭了目录索引。我对poa.st此前没有任何接触。而你也许对poa.st的详细信息有比较多的了解，我希望你能提供该实例为什么是纳粹实例的理由。

第二个问题是对于纳粹实例和纳粹用户应该采取什么态度(我认为作为纳粹主义者的个体用户和以纳粹主义为组织原则的实例是有很大的不同的)，对于持纳粹主义观点的个体用户，我的观点是，除非该实例明确表明禁止纳粹用户，他们有权在Fediverse的各实例上注册并且发表观点，或建立自己的实例，但如果有明确的证据表明他通过Fediverse在现实中从事违法的活动，那么法律机构或实例管理员便可以依法对其惩罚。我不赞成以反纳粹的言论对纳粹用户和言论进行清理，首先，在不妨碍他人权益的情况下，言论自由是每个人的权利，是民主制度的核心原则之一，基于意识形态的言论审查本身要比纳粹言论的危险大得多。其次，纳粹一词在今日已被大幅滥用，覆盖了各个政治光谱，反纳粹在实际操作中几乎不可避免地无限扩大。第三，最重要的一点，要对所有的纳粹言论进行审查，只可能依靠一个权力高度集中，控制力极强的中央权力才能实现，这种权力的存在本身就是一个危险得多的炸弹。

对于纳粹实例，我的观点是，首先按照法律规定的来，违法了就必须接受惩罚，合法的话公权力便不宜干涉，但由于纳粹实例的侵略性一般比单独的纳粹个体要高，因此人们应该对其保持高度警惕，不过前提是该实例的确是纳粹实例。若该实例只是自说自话，不打算传教，人们不必过于担忧，但如果该实例充满了意识形态狂热，打算传播信仰，那么其它实例就应该组织起来，积极地与之战斗了。

以上是我的看法，不论以那种角度来看，Guardian所主张的通过技术巨头和政府机构对思想言论进行的中心化控制和对去中心化社交平台进行的封杀(虽然没有直说，但意思很明显)，都是对思想自由和言论自由的无耻攻击，体现的都是一种反民主的危险倾向。