David Heinemeier Hansson

The post reflects on the shifting landscape of free speech, drawing parallels between historical and contemporary events. It highlights recent incidents of government censorship on social media in Brazil, the European Union's actions against X (formerly Twitter), and a call for the arrest of Elon Musk by a former US official. The author warns that the erosion of free speech is a real threat in the western world, emphasizing the need to defend free expression against authoritarian measures.

Free speech isn't guaranteed to be forever

Mark my words: the gov will start forcing social media platforms to verify each user with SSN/Gov IDs so people can be identified immediately. It’s only a matter of time (10 years?). It will be done in the name of “national security” and GOOD LUCK critiquing the gov after that.

Let me share another perspective on the recent events in Brazil that led to X banishment:
<ol>
<li>Our Constitution prohibits explicitly to ask for a coup (more specifically, a military coup), given that between 1964 and 1985, the country was ruled by the military</li>
<li>The Supreme Court (by its judges) asked several times to take down accounts that was asking for coups, coordinating riots (like in Jan 8th 2022), deposition of elected politicians</li>
<li>X refused and sometimes, took a condescending attitude to not follow the orders, and Musk decided to close the brazilian office in order to “protect the employees from being arrested”</li>
<li>To be clear, X was only one channel used for that, Whatsapp was more used, but so far, the Supreme Court didn’t went after Meta, maybe because they obey the orders</li>
<li>The Supreme Court ordered X to name a representative, in order words, someone to suffer the consequences, and by not following this order, again, the Court decided to block access to the service</li>
</ol>

the ends are being used to justify the means by people who only think they understand the ends. it’s a comically bad situation – see Tyler’s comment.

Nope this is absolutely wrong.
In Brazil there was a coup attempt after Jair Bolsonaro lost the election, he and his followers stormed government buildings and claimed there were election frauds without showing any proof whatsoever.
The politicians that staged the failed coup are still trying to foster people to try another coup, because Jair Bolsonaro is very likely to go to jail for treason.
Other than that, just look what kind of post and accounts are being banned, openly racist (in Brazil, discrimination by racism is a crime), openly genocidal and in some cases openly Nazi (also a crime in Brazil)
But ok, when these people start killing Jews maybe you’ll listen to us…

Abstract free speech gets stuck when subjected to informational influence, which can be easily applied if you control the source of information. Our current ideas about free speech were formed when information monopolies did not exist.
For example: I didn’t subscribe to a social media tag, so why did I receive that post? This is how the perception of the world is shaped—because I don’t have the time or intention to verify every fact from different points of view.
Should we have free speech? Definitely. Should we, the government, or someone else control public media (when does media become public? when does it become media?)? Definitely. But I don’t even have a faint idea of how it should be done.