Which has primacy?
Freedom of Speech
Autonomy in Commmunication
How do these differ?
What do they comprise of?
What conflicting or intersecting rights exist?
No, I’ve not defined terms. I have definitions in mind, but am also trialing language. The 2nd term is novel and appears not to be in significant use. I’m interested in seeing what others presume the meaning to be.
@dredmorbius @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @CaseGage @jaranta
Reading the diaspora post, that's clear and interesting. IMHO "The right to receive, or deny receipt of documents and, signals" is the key difference from freedom of speech, and should be closer to the centre of the argument, because concrete action based on that is more practicable, especially when third parties mentioned but not directly addressed are nevertheless taken as interlocutors.
E.g. even if I'm talking to my 1/
@dredmorbius @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @CaseGage @jaranta ... disgusting bigoted friends on our disgusting bigoted medium, if we're talking about some person or group even without their presence or them being aware, so long as the communication is in public, that person or group is counted as an interlocutor in such a conversation, because there's inevitably an outcome for them.
Could be a fragile concept in legal practicality tho. 2/2
so long as the communication is in public, that person or group is counted as an interlocutor in such a conversation
That suggests some term to describe a discussion which has the appearance of beingclosed and private, but is in fact public or observed.
"Parasocial" is the term used to descrbe the relationship between a public figure, often an entertainer or informer, and their audience. See especially fandoms.
"Paraprivacy" might be the term for a false sense of a close and intimate discussion, though the participants themselves are together on a public stage.
As are we here.
Is there an existing term?
I like me some creative but transparent terminology and am trying to come up with something, but it's a tough task.
Fun one: reality show privacy.
Googleable, nerdpleaser: nontimacy.
I feel a regrettable fondness about the latter 🧐
"Kayaalp, I. G. (2050). Face-saving patterns in nontimate conversations on udiddit.com. Discourse & Intercephalic Media, 20th issue, Vol. XXI, pp. 11954--11969."
@CaseGage @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @jaranta it was an attempt to come up with a term for https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/105561357852602886 so @dredmorbius's prompt is probably the best definition: a discussion [and/or a sitation?] which has the appearance of being closed and private, but is in fact public or observed.
@cadadr The third-party topic-of-discussion has an interest regardless of whether the discussion itself is public, I'd argue. Say, a grand jury, selection (or rejection) committee, star chamber, regulator, HOA, management review committee, etc.
What specific disclosures might be made could vary greatly with circumstances. This is generally ground decided case-by-case by courts. At great cost.
@dredmorbius @hhardy01 @carcinopithecus @cjd @CaseGage @jaranta It's a thought I love to entertain and say out loud sometimes: "Exact" sciences have it way easier: Atom the Dum Dum just does what it's supposed to do, just a matter of time to find out what that is.
Social sciences tho are screwed bc while a brain is useful to the bearer, it's harder than subatomic particles to observe and reason about. We're trapped in this weird universe of some vague patterns and no rules.
@cadadr In physics, the entities observed and described don't change behaviour due to their own understanding of the model describing their behaviour, or even the less confining capability of observing and responding to their environment. They simply react to physical forces or influences.
Even this can provide unpredictable behaviour: the three-body problem, or double pendulum, macroscopically, quantum effects at atomic scales.
Even at the viral and cellular levels, biological systems are interacting with their environment. Social sciences themselves in part comprise that which they attempt to explain: they are endogenous to the system.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko