4 ms·

Agreed. The most astounding part is how corporate america, government and the media changed the culture of the internet ( not just social media ) within a span

Agreed. The most astounding part is how corporate america, government and the media changed the culture of the internet ( not just social media ) within a span of a couple of years. The rampant censorship is something I could not have envisioned. 5 years ago, if you told me censorship would be the norm on reddit, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc. I would not have believed you. 10 years ago, if you told me anyone would support banning/stealing of domains ( daily stormer, etc ), I would not have believed you. It is just astounding to witness the censorship powers of corporate + government + media. The promise of the internet as an open platform for ideas/speech/etc that I grew up with in the 90s/00s has ended. Perhaps it's the result of the centralization of the internet in the past 10 years. Hopefully the pendulum swings back towards a more decentralized version of the internet.

distantwarning 9y ago
I don't use Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other large corporate account--for free or pay. I pay for my email with Fastmail, a trusted name. I've been with them since 2002. I don't even use Google, Bing, or any other large search engine. I don't need to. I block all ads, tracking, cookies, beacons, and browser fingerprinting pretty well. The way to win is to not play their game. I give my data to no one. Fastmail doesn't even have my address, just my name. I use Visa gift cards to buy stuff online. I've been in IT over three decades and my online life is just fine. I don't use or miss any of the big services. Like many, I preferred the Web of old, circa 1998. I miss Geocities, even.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  While I agree, I think that still misses a major problem: How do you have a voice in society from that position?
- sushisource 9y ago
  "Just don't use it" isn't a reasonable solution to something a gigantic portion of the world uses every day. Arguments like these are about "how can we structurally change this problem so that society as a whole ends up in a better place". Your "well, I do it better" anecdote is neat, but doesn't really help anyone.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
So are the true daredevils (if you will) just getting bored? That given how "acceptable" things are now too many just don't find it exciting? If so, what are those (young?) entrepreneurial-minded dumping their time and effort in to?
- vlehto 9y ago
  It's possibly completely a demographic change. Back in 90's the internet was for the young, curious and open minded. And I mean like 5% of the most most open minded people around. Now internet is for everybody. Maybe the average population just wants their media bit stale and censored.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
Serious question: How could you possibly not have seen that coming? I mean, obviously, noone could really have known the exact time frame in which it would happen, but I really cannot fathom how people are surprised by this. When a power structure incentivises a certain behaviour, that behaviour will be what happens, and large concentrations of power always are extremely prone to corruption of any ideals they might have had at some point in their history. The only way to avoid this is to avoid concentration of power.
- fragmede 9y ago
  The surprise isn't that censorship would exist, but that we would support it. It turns out I won't defend, to the death, your right to copy and paste the n-word a million times and call it discourse, and death threats to anybody, especially journalists, are simply unacceptable. The surprise is that online, people yell "fire!" into a crowded theater for the fun of it, and now that people have died, I now find myself supporting limits on speech - not by the government, but the corporations running the modern day printing press. It turns out ideas are dangerous, but not in the way we thought - we thought they would set us free and railed against government censorship, but instead people were seduced by the idea that they were born kings, only to have that taken from them by the immigrants/Jews/homosexuals/media elite/Hillary/Trump. It turns out using the ashes of public education to shine the light of liberty ends up with racist public opinion.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > The surprise isn't that censorship would exist, but that we would support it. Please don't speak for me. > It turns out I won't defend, to the death, your right to copy and paste the n-word a million times and call it discourse, and death threats to anybody, especially journalists, are simply unacceptable. Which are justifications for censorship how? > The surprise is that online, people yell "fire!" into a crowded theater for the fun of it Hu? What would be an example of that?! I can't really imagine how that analogy could possibly apply to online conversations (given that those usually don't take place in a crowded theater) ... > I now find myself supporting limits on speech - not by the government, but the corporations running the modern day printing press. So, you are convinced that censorship by corporations will overall have a better long-term outcome for society than free speech combined with efforts to change people's minds (instead of preventing them from saying what they think) and other approaches to combatting crimes? > It turns out ideas are dangerous, but not in the way we thought - we thought they would set us free and railed against government censorship, but instead people were seduced by the idea that they were born kings, only to have that taken from them by the immigrants/Jews/homosexuals/media elite/Hillary/Trump. Yes, I agree that ideas can be dangerous, and as far as I am concerned, in exactly the way that I thought. I think one of the most dangerous ideas ever is the idea that authoritarianism is a solution to anything. Some use that idea to come to the conclusion that you have to elect a strong leader that will deport all Mexicans. Some use that idea to come to the conclusion that you have to empower a private communication monopoly to decide what speech is acceptable in society. All do it with the expectation that the power they put in place will defend their interests. History tells us that that is a naive expectation. > It turns out using the ashes of public education to shine the light of liberty ends up with racist public opinion. Are you sure that you aren't confusing visibility with existence? That is to say: Has unrestricted online discourse led to people adopting a racist standpoint, or has it simply made visible what was there all along?
nine_k 9y ago
Its almost as if you have missed 9/11, when the terrorists have won.

distantwarning 9y ago

I don't use Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other large corporate account--for free or pay. I pay for my email with Fastmail, a trusted name. I've been with them since 2002. I don't even use Google, Bing, or any other large search engine. I don't need to. I block all ads, tracking, cookies, beacons, and browser fingerprinting pretty well. The way to win is to not play their game. I give my data to no one. Fastmail doesn't even have my address, just my name. I use Visa gift cards to buy stuff online. I've been in IT over three decades and my online life is just fine. I don't use or miss any of the big services. Like many, I preferred the Web of old, circa 1998. I miss Geocities, even.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
While I agree, I think that still misses a major problem: How do you have a voice in society from that position?
sushisource 9y ago
"Just don't use it" isn't a reasonable solution to something a gigantic portion of the world uses every day. Arguments like these are about "how can we structurally change this problem so that society as a whole ends up in a better place". Your "well, I do it better" anecdote is neat, but doesn't really help anyone.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

So are the true daredevils (if you will) just getting bored? That given how "acceptable" things are now too many just don't find it exciting? If so, what are those (young?) entrepreneurial-minded dumping their time and effort in to?

vlehto 9y ago
It's possibly completely a demographic change. Back in 90's the internet was for the young, curious and open minded. And I mean like 5% of the most most open minded people around. Now internet is for everybody. Maybe the average population just wants their media bit stale and censored.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

Serious question: How could you possibly not have seen that coming? I mean, obviously, noone could really have known the exact time frame in which it would happen, but I really cannot fathom how people are surprised by this. When a power structure incentivises a certain behaviour, that behaviour will be what happens, and large concentrations of power always are extremely prone to corruption of any ideals they might have had at some point in their history. The only way to avoid this is to avoid concentration of power.

fragmede 9y ago
The surprise isn't that censorship would exist, but that we would support it. It turns out I won't defend, to the death, your right to copy and paste the n-word a million times and call it discourse, and death threats to anybody, especially journalists, are simply unacceptable. The surprise is that online, people yell "fire!" into a crowded theater for the fun of it, and now that people have died, I now find myself supporting limits on speech - not by the government, but the corporations running the modern day printing press. It turns out ideas are dangerous, but not in the way we thought - we thought they would set us free and railed against government censorship, but instead people were seduced by the idea that they were born kings, only to have that taken from them by the immigrants/Jews/homosexuals/media elite/Hillary/Trump. It turns out using the ashes of public education to shine the light of liberty ends up with racist public opinion.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > The surprise isn't that censorship would exist, but that we would support it. Please don't speak for me. > It turns out I won't defend, to the death, your right to copy and paste the n-word a million times and call it discourse, and death threats to anybody, especially journalists, are simply unacceptable. Which are justifications for censorship how? > The surprise is that online, people yell "fire!" into a crowded theater for the fun of it Hu? What would be an example of that?! I can't really imagine how that analogy could possibly apply to online conversations (given that those usually don't take place in a crowded theater) ... > I now find myself supporting limits on speech - not by the government, but the corporations running the modern day printing press. So, you are convinced that censorship by corporations will overall have a better long-term outcome for society than free speech combined with efforts to change people's minds (instead of preventing them from saying what they think) and other approaches to combatting crimes? > It turns out ideas are dangerous, but not in the way we thought - we thought they would set us free and railed against government censorship, but instead people were seduced by the idea that they were born kings, only to have that taken from them by the immigrants/Jews/homosexuals/media elite/Hillary/Trump. Yes, I agree that ideas can be dangerous, and as far as I am concerned, in exactly the way that I thought. I think one of the most dangerous ideas ever is the idea that authoritarianism is a solution to anything. Some use that idea to come to the conclusion that you have to elect a strong leader that will deport all Mexicans. Some use that idea to come to the conclusion that you have to empower a private communication monopoly to decide what speech is acceptable in society. All do it with the expectation that the power they put in place will defend their interests. History tells us that that is a naive expectation. > It turns out using the ashes of public education to shine the light of liberty ends up with racist public opinion. Are you sure that you aren't confusing visibility with existence? That is to say: Has unrestricted online discourse led to people adopting a racist standpoint, or has it simply made visible what was there all along?

nine_k 9y ago

Its almost as if you have missed 9/11, when the terrorists have won.