Mihail Pojarsky/freedom of speech

Dima Khomak recently wrote an article dedicated to freedom of speech, which suddenly rushed to be discussed. Alas, for some reason, many read the text with their asses - otherwise, how to explain that they subtracted a speech against freedom of speech there? In fact, Homak expressed literally the reference libertarian position from the Chamber of Weights and Measures: they say, freedom of speech is when the state does not persecute you for your words, but the owners (for example, the owners of social networks) can privately establish rules of conduct on their sites, which includes and prohibitions.

To argue with such a position would not have occurred to anyone since John Stuart Mill. No one in their right mind claimed that all points of view are equal and equally useful. The problem is that we cannot determine which point of view is better with the help of the state cudgel, but we can in the course of the dispute and with the help of reputation. Different opinions have different value in the market of ideas, only it is determined in a decentralized way through the evaluation of many different agents. Some ideas are becoming more popular, while others are overgrown with a strip of alienation. And if ideas like "white supremacism" are treated as if it's just shit - there is no violation of freedom of speech. Otherwise, how could we separate the good from the bad if there were no decency and reputation? No one is obliged to provide a platform for those from whom it smells.

But, nevertheless, when it comes to social networks, such a position is not entirely correct. The point is that private vs. state is a false dichotomy. Economist Elinor Ostrom once won a Nobel Prize for proving that, despite the "tragedy of the commons", a third type of property, commons, can be effective and even indispensable in some situations. Commons are forests and reservoirs, rivers and underground springs, streets and roads. In general, all those resources that everyone uses and which, at the same time, cannot be divided into "portions". And I never get tired of repeating that social networks are not private territories, but rather commons. Yes, the private owner pays for the infrastructure (while making money on it), but all the content is created by the users - much like the citizens fill the city with life, although the roads can be built by the state or a private company. Moreover, social networks were originally promoted and presented as public platforms - therefore, the rules should not be set unilaterally. Approximately how the owner of a cafe that operates under a public offer (and not as a closed club) entered the public space with his property and can no longer create arbitrariness.

Keeping a white supremacist out of private property is fine, but keeping him out of public Hyde Park is really a violation of free speech. Of course, people will have to bypass it by pinching their noses. But what can you do? This is exactly the price we pay for our freedom and yours...

Mihail Pojarsky 202-11-22