4 ms·

Prior to internet, speeches are controlled by newspapers and televisions. They won't even publish your speech if they don't like it. In that sense, Internet is

by eva1984 10y ago

Prior to internet, speeches are controlled by newspapers and televisions. They won't even publish your speech if they don't like it. In that sense, Internet is still a huge step forward.

bobcostas55 10y ago
The difference is network effects. There are tons and tons of newspapers (over 1000 in the US alone), and one can plausibly start their own. There's a tiny number of social networks and it's extremely difficult to break into that market. Low barriers + large numbers is at least a nudge in the direction of intellectual diversity.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Tons and tons of newspapers? Not really. Here in Australia there are precisely two. All major newspapers are owned either by News Limited, a subsidiary of News Corporation, or Fairfax Media.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia#Newspapers_and_news_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia#Newspapers_...
  - skissane 10y ago
    Three if you count Perth's local daily, The West Australian, which is owned by Seven West Media. That doesn't really change your point though. But, Australia is a small country (in population terms), and it only has six or so major cities, so I don't think we could expect vastly wider media ownership than we've currently got.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
      One could argue that we could add should, but we don't. We just think 23 million people can only support two news papers. That way we can claim there isn't a monopoly.
  - Synaesthesia 10y ago
    The US used to have a vibrant newspaper scene with all kinds of papers ranging the spectrum. This was in the 29th century. Since then a handful of giant corporations have dominated the media industry.
    - Freak_NL 10y ago
      > This was in the 29th century. Good to hear newspapers still exist in the future. :)
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        They clearly meant BCE as they used the past tense. ;o)
- eva1984 10y ago
  Internet also offers you large audience instantly. If you really wants your speech to been seen and not censored, you can setup your own website for it.
  - Synaesthesia 10y ago
    Right in theory but the internet is dominated in practice by a handful of giant companies.
    - ComodoHacker 10y ago
      The same way you can say internet is dominated by a handful of carriers. I see Facebook as a medium, a higher level one.
- pilif 10y ago
  I would say the barrier to launching a social network is considerably lower than the barrier of launching a newspaper. Getting a significant amount of users is tricky of course. But that's also true for both newspapers and social networks

by eva1984 10y ago

Prior to internet, speeches are controlled by newspapers and televisions. They won't even publish your speech if they don't like it. In that sense, Internet is still a huge step forward.

bobcostas55 10y ago

The difference is network effects. There are tons and tons of newspapers (over 1000 in the US alone), and one can plausibly start their own. There's a tiny number of social networks and it's extremely difficult to break into that market. Low barriers + large numbers is at least a nudge in the direction of intellectual diversity.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Tons and tons of newspapers? Not really. Here in Australia there are precisely two. All major newspapers are owned either by News Limited, a subsidiary of News Corporation, or Fairfax Media.[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia#Newspapers_and_news_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Australia#Newspapers_...
- skissane 10y ago
  Three if you count Perth's local daily, The West Australian, which is owned by Seven West Media. That doesn't really change your point though. But, Australia is a small country (in population terms), and it only has six or so major cities, so I don't think we could expect vastly wider media ownership than we've currently got.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    One could argue that we could add should, but we don't. We just think 23 million people can only support two news papers. That way we can claim there isn't a monopoly.
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  The US used to have a vibrant newspaper scene with all kinds of papers ranging the spectrum. This was in the 29th century. Since then a handful of giant corporations have dominated the media industry.
  - Freak_NL 10y ago
    > This was in the 29th century. Good to hear newspapers still exist in the future. :)
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      They clearly meant BCE as they used the past tense. ;o)
eva1984 10y ago
Internet also offers you large audience instantly. If you really wants your speech to been seen and not censored, you can setup your own website for it.
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  Right in theory but the internet is dominated in practice by a handful of giant companies.
  - ComodoHacker 10y ago
    The same way you can say internet is dominated by a handful of carriers. I see Facebook as a medium, a higher level one.
pilif 10y ago
I would say the barrier to launching a social network is considerably lower than the barrier of launching a newspaper. Getting a significant amount of users is tricky of course. But that's also true for both newspapers and social networks