5 ms·

Exactly. And there are so many ways it can go wrong. That's a problem with big companies. They need to please a mass of people that are very different with eac

Exactly. And there are so many ways it can go wrong. That's a problem with big companies. They need to please a mass of people that are very different with each others. Eventually they settle with the lowest common denominator, and eliminate more and more things that can offend. Among them you will find: - new ideas which you can't know if they are bad or good yet and need assessment but will feel inconfortable. - old ideas becoming relevant in our new context (or that we are evolved enough to accept now) that have been put asides for long because of habits. - ideas that are important for a part of the population and unsettling for another part. - distrupting or creative things, arts, that just need to exist for humanity to keep grow, even if it's not always good. - bad things that people need to know exist. You can't exercice criticism if you don't have the material to criticise. People need to be able to read "Mein Kampf" so we can argument against it. If you remove all the things that is offensive to everyone, the only thing left is a white sheet. Wait, not necessarily white, I didn't mean to imply... Well yes, sheets are made from trees I realize it has an impact on the planet but... Ok then there's nothing left. What do you mean I can't think outside of my white-sheetist stereotypes ? What if I identify as a nihilist ? You are offending me!

ams6110 10y ago
White sheets?? Are you in the KKK?
- cm3 10y ago
  As in paper.
  - copperheart 10y ago
    Woosh!
mozumder 10y ago
You can get all of that by visiting another website. You don't need to go to Facebook or Twitter to get that. I don't get why people feel the need for Facebook or Twitter need to host those items on their own servers? Do people not realize that these are private companies with editorial discretion?
- vasaulys 10y ago
  but increasingly, the internet for people is facebook and Twitterand and Instagram, etc. The issue is that its hard to get the message out with a few brands dominating the internets. How will one get the message out about a website if she or he couldn't blog about it on a platform like Twitter or Facebook? p.s. I might be reading you wrong here
- alanwatts 10y ago
  Let's follow that logic: the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies (i.e. Comcast), so shouldn't Comcast be able to censor and throttle anything that goes over their network?
  - mozumder 10y ago
    Infrastructure isn't a free market. If it were, there would be a hundred different cable lines hanging outside your house, like what happened in the 1800's. So, in order to prevent that situation, we allow one company a monopoly on the market. In exchange, that company is forced to follow common carrier rules, such as not interfering with speech.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      I think the point here is that Twitter and Facebook increasingly look like a piece of infrastructure - it's hard to reach the general population without them, it's hard to opt out of using them, etc.
    - wfo 10y ago
      An entrenched-monopoly dominating an industry primarily controlled by network effects isn't really a free market either, free markets don't exist outside of college econ textbooks. We all agree to use the same company for infrastructure, just like we all agree to use the same couple of companies for social media. It's just when the social media companies do things that are bad people pop up and say "they are private companies in a free market they can do whatever they want" because these companies are new and cable companies are old.
intopieces 10y ago
>You are offending me! These quips about PC culture miss the mark. The rise of social networks / platforms catering to people who express their distaste for certain speech stems from their desire to further their revenue streams. I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content. Expect this behavior from every site that harvests user data and relies on adclicks to pay their shareholders. The monetezation of self expression -- a concern that dates back to at least the Usenet era -- is the culprit, not the speech criticizers.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content." I have left both Twitter and Github recently, not because there "wasn't enough offensive content", but because I find thought-policing even more offensive than the allegedly "offensive" speech. If it weren't for the fact that Facebook is used by many of my older relatives, I'd be out of there, too, and it won't take much more to get me to leave. So... now you've heard of someone. I do not think I am unique.
  - intopieces 10y ago
    >I do not think I am unique. When those that agree with you start affecting said companies' bottom line, we'll call it a movement. Until then you appear to be in the severe minority. The Internet is not governed, it is bought and sold; if you have any intention of affecting change, you do better to acknowledge that, at least as a start. Realize, too, that the ability to "leave" these services is something of a privilege. Every job I've ever applied to in the tech world asks for a LinkedIn and, I've observed for programming positions, at least a presence on GitHub. It's hard to explain your free speech objections on your intro letter.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      The majority don't care about democracy and trade freedom for security everyday. The majority don't care about health and trade a healthy body for a cheeseburger everyday. The majority don't care about ecology and trade pollution for saving a walk everyday. Decision affecting the humanity cannot be based on the majority behavior. It should be based on the majority vote, because then you give people an occasion to step back and think. To discuss and argue. But don't base on status quo.

ams6110 10y ago

White sheets?? Are you in the KKK?

cm3 10y ago
As in paper.
- copperheart 10y ago
  Woosh!

mozumder 10y ago

You can get all of that by visiting another website. You don't need to go to Facebook or Twitter to get that. I don't get why people feel the need for Facebook or Twitter need to host those items on their own servers? Do people not realize that these are private companies with editorial discretion?

vasaulys 10y ago
but increasingly, the internet for people is facebook and Twitterand and Instagram, etc. The issue is that its hard to get the message out with a few brands dominating the internets. How will one get the message out about a website if she or he couldn't blog about it on a platform like Twitter or Facebook? p.s. I might be reading you wrong here
alanwatts 10y ago
Let's follow that logic: the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies (i.e. Comcast), so shouldn't Comcast be able to censor and throttle anything that goes over their network?
- mozumder 10y ago
  Infrastructure isn't a free market. If it were, there would be a hundred different cable lines hanging outside your house, like what happened in the 1800's. So, in order to prevent that situation, we allow one company a monopoly on the market. In exchange, that company is forced to follow common carrier rules, such as not interfering with speech.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I think the point here is that Twitter and Facebook increasingly look like a piece of infrastructure - it's hard to reach the general population without them, it's hard to opt out of using them, etc.
  - wfo 10y ago
    An entrenched-monopoly dominating an industry primarily controlled by network effects isn't really a free market either, free markets don't exist outside of college econ textbooks. We all agree to use the same company for infrastructure, just like we all agree to use the same couple of companies for social media. It's just when the social media companies do things that are bad people pop up and say "they are private companies in a free market they can do whatever they want" because these companies are new and cable companies are old.

intopieces 10y ago

>You are offending me! These quips about PC culture miss the mark. The rise of social networks / platforms catering to people who express their distaste for certain speech stems from their desire to further their revenue streams. I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content. Expect this behavior from every site that harvests user data and relies on adclicks to pay their shareholders. The monetezation of self expression -- a concern that dates back to at least the Usenet era -- is the culprit, not the speech criticizers.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
"I haven't heard of anyone leaving a platform because there wasn't enough offensive content." I have left both Twitter and Github recently, not because there "wasn't enough offensive content", but because I find thought-policing even more offensive than the allegedly "offensive" speech. If it weren't for the fact that Facebook is used by many of my older relatives, I'd be out of there, too, and it won't take much more to get me to leave. So... now you've heard of someone. I do not think I am unique.
- intopieces 10y ago
  >I do not think I am unique. When those that agree with you start affecting said companies' bottom line, we'll call it a movement. Until then you appear to be in the severe minority. The Internet is not governed, it is bought and sold; if you have any intention of affecting change, you do better to acknowledge that, at least as a start. Realize, too, that the ability to "leave" these services is something of a privilege. Every job I've ever applied to in the tech world asks for a LinkedIn and, I've observed for programming positions, at least a presence on GitHub. It's hard to explain your free speech objections on your intro letter.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    The majority don't care about democracy and trade freedom for security everyday. The majority don't care about health and trade a healthy body for a cheeseburger everyday. The majority don't care about ecology and trade pollution for saving a walk everyday. Decision affecting the humanity cannot be based on the majority behavior. It should be based on the majority vote, because then you give people an occasion to step back and think. To discuss and argue. But don't base on status quo.