4 ms·

1) The fact that they're paying for speech they disagree with isn't necessarily bad for business. Whether it causes them to lose funding/revenue is a business p

1) The fact that they're paying for speech they disagree with isn't necessarily bad for business. Whether it causes them to lose funding/revenue is a business problem that doesn't seem inherently unsolvable. Does reddit increase or shrink their ad revenue when they decide to drop a controversial subreddit? To take the example in your other post, there's probably a bunch of offensive groups on Facebook. Does P&G threaten to stop advertising on FB? What about non-ad-based revenue models? 2) Not sure why that follows at all.

jasode 10y ago
>2) Not sure why that follows at all. Because marginalized or fringe opinions already have freedom of speech at the level of ICANN DNS (get a domain name) and the ISP (pay for internet connection and virtual server to host webpages). E.g., if you really really really want to write a webpage about the benefits of child sex, you can get a domain called ChildSexIsGood.com. Host your controversial content (text not pics) there. You don't need Facebook to "approve" of your fringe content. There, you already have "freedom of speech" -- and you've had that autonomy for decades before Facebook/reddit came into existence. You still have that uncensored publishing power on DNS+ISP now. But that's not good enough because marginalized voices also want an audience. Registering a new domain name doesn't mean you have web visitors. Without the audience, it's not "really free speech." >What about non-ad-based revenue models? Nobody has come up with a way for people to pay for websites with opinions they don't want to read. Consider how hard it is for The New York Times and WSJ to entice people to pay for stories they do want to read.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  1) But free speech doesn't entitle you to an audience? Not sure why you're making that leap. It's free speech regardless of the existence of an audience. 2) Sure. And people read the fraction of the NYT they do want to read. And they pay for the part they don't want to read too, because it is happily packaged with the rest. There could also be other business models that involve other third parties than advertisers. Who knows? Edit: Engrish.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >Not sure why you're making that leap. It's free speech regardless of the existence of an audience. To clarify, I'm arguing the way others argue so if doesn't seem logical to you, I totally agree! When you tell people who are censored on places like Facebook to just go make their own website, they'll respond with the analogy: "freedom to shout opinions in my own living room where nobody else can hear it is NOT FREE SPEECH!" Using that logic, that's why they insist putting the "public space" label on Facebook/reddit/twitter. It's not good enough that DNS+ISP is the "public space". Instead, it must be somebody else's website that already has an audience of millions.

jasode 10y ago

>2) Not sure why that follows at all. Because marginalized or fringe opinions already have freedom of speech at the level of ICANN DNS (get a domain name) and the ISP (pay for internet connection and virtual server to host webpages). E.g., if you really really really want to write a webpage about the benefits of child sex, you can get a domain called ChildSexIsGood.com. Host your controversial content (text not pics) there. You don't need Facebook to "approve" of your fringe content. There, you already have "freedom of speech" -- and you've had that autonomy for decades before Facebook/reddit came into existence. You still have that uncensored publishing power on DNS+ISP now. But that's not good enough because marginalized voices also want an audience. Registering a new domain name doesn't mean you have web visitors. Without the audience, it's not "really free speech." >What about non-ad-based revenue models? Nobody has come up with a way for people to pay for websites with opinions they don't want to read. Consider how hard it is for The New York Times and WSJ to entice people to pay for stories they do want to read.

davidivadavid 10y ago
1) But free speech doesn't entitle you to an audience? Not sure why you're making that leap. It's free speech regardless of the existence of an audience. 2) Sure. And people read the fraction of the NYT they do want to read. And they pay for the part they don't want to read too, because it is happily packaged with the rest. There could also be other business models that involve other third parties than advertisers. Who knows? Edit: Engrish.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Not sure why you're making that leap. It's free speech regardless of the existence of an audience. To clarify, I'm arguing the way others argue so if doesn't seem logical to you, I totally agree! When you tell people who are censored on places like Facebook to just go make their own website, they'll respond with the analogy: "freedom to shout opinions in my own living room where nobody else can hear it is NOT FREE SPEECH!" Using that logic, that's why they insist putting the "public space" label on Facebook/reddit/twitter. It's not good enough that DNS+ISP is the "public space". Instead, it must be somebody else's website that already has an audience of millions.