Free Speech and the IndieWeb

A couple days ago, I wrote the blog post titled ["Five Interesting Indie Platforms You Might Not Have Heard Of"](https://brennan.day/five-interesting-indie-platforms-you-might-not-have-heard-of/). I was really happy with it—being able to share the work of others that deserve support and can help foster digital indie communities.

But, regrettably, I had to rescind one of my recommendations. Let me explain.

As I mentioned in the post itself, BlueDwarf's "rule enforcement is informal, and I admit I've stumbled upon some... peculiar opinions and takes during my time on the platform, so take that as you will." This was a nice way of saying you can find fringe, conspiratorial or right-wing beliefs and rhetoric on the site.

At first, I really didn't like the idea of disavowing a small indie platform simply because it allows bad takes or opinions I personally strongly disagree with. I believe the price for community and connection we pay is inconvenience, annoyance, and weirdos.

There are such a small amount of people who give a fuck about the small web and independent infrastructure—let alone those who are actually building and maintaining it—that surely it would be far less productive to splinter ourselves. The creator of BlueDwarf in particular runs the [Cheapskate's Guide](https://cheapskatesguide.org/), which is an excellent resource for low-end, affordable, accessible hardware and software and how I found BlueDwarf in the first place.

I am always going to have a big-tent mindset, and know that the only way we can enact meaningful sustainable change is by working with people we don't like and disagree with.

And that's where I stood, and where I assumed things would be set. But then I messaged [SpaceGhost](https://bluedwarf.top/cackle/view_profile.php?user_name=SpaceGhost), the sysadmin and owner of BlueDwarf, to see where exactly he draws the line in the sand. And at first, I was hopeful we had a mutual understanding of what's important and worth fighting for, and what isn't. Of what harm is worth tolerating, and what harm isn't.

But that, sadly, ended up not being the case.

But before I get into BlueDwarf, I want to assert something important—not all harm is the same. I still don't believe that, as-is, BlueDwarf is a harmful or dangerous website. Rather, the owner's beliefs and how he told me his personal view and how he would act in **specific, hypothetical** situations is why I can't recommend it.

## Degrees of Harm

I want to make note that I think it's unproductive to put everything into a single bucket of "harmful," as there is a wide range of degrees of how harmful a community's approach to free speech is.

X has Creator Revenue Sharing, which means paying users earn a cut of ad revenue based on impressions from other paying users.