4 ms·

Monopoly (oligopoly) 101: 1) Climb. 2) Pull the ladder up behind you. I think trafficking is horrible. I also think that censorship aids abuse, including pr

Monopoly (oligopoly) 101: 1) Climb. 2) Pull the ladder up behind you. I think trafficking is horrible. I also think that censorship aids abuse, including probably trafficking. Would we even be having this conversation, if decentralized conversation hadn't brought such topics into broader, public knowledge? Would Weinstein still be preying, if an open Web hadn't made an end-run around mainstream media and their "pulled" stories? Maybe apples and oranges. On the other hand, law enforcement has earned zero credibility towards their claims of apples actually being apples. In other words, where are the stories -- the facts -- demonstrating such ubiquitous surveillance and censorship actually achieving their stated goals? As well as not serving other unstated, clandestine goals and mission creep. Remember when "Internet surveillance" was strictly for and "because terrorists"? How long did that last?

comex 9y ago
> Would Weinstein still be preying, if an open Web hadn't made an end-run around mainstream media and their "pulled" stories? The Harvey Weinstein story initially broke via articles published in the New York Times and New Yorker, which are pretty much as mainstream as it gets, so… probably not? Is there something I’m missing?
- tgragnato 9y ago
  Traditional "mainstream" media are not dead, but they struggled to keep up with the challenge imposed by the new media. Readership habits changed: free content, physical vs virtual, advertisement model ... Journalistic freedom and space found (self-censorship) in the mainstream media are directly or indirectly affected by this. How many articles have not been published in the past because of the relationships with advertisers? (Hollywood is a big player in this) Now there's a different barrier for stories to get published. Sometimes it's a better thing, other times it's not.
userbinator 9y ago
Remember when "Internet surveillance" was strictly for and "because terrorists"? How long did that last? It still is. Along with children (and child porn in particular), "extremists", drugs, and other things that provoke more emotional than rational thought. These days, almost everything oppressive is done in the name of "security".
- kunimu 9y ago
  Very true. It is of course not only a US or Western issue. England and Wales have illegalised possession of certain pornographic comics showing children, for example. Australia and Canada have gone so far as to do the same for even possession of stories or diary entries depicting it. This was done solely from the "think of the children!" angle. To those who might respond with the dact that only disgusting people could possibly enjoy such material, Snowden's "saying that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say". It also sets the precedent that the State has the right to decide what art you can possess and produce privately.

comex 9y ago

> Would Weinstein still be preying, if an open Web hadn't made an end-run around mainstream media and their "pulled" stories? The Harvey Weinstein story initially broke via articles published in the New York Times and New Yorker, which are pretty much as mainstream as it gets, so… probably not? Is there something I’m missing?

tgragnato 9y ago
Traditional "mainstream" media are not dead, but they struggled to keep up with the challenge imposed by the new media. Readership habits changed: free content, physical vs virtual, advertisement model ... Journalistic freedom and space found (self-censorship) in the mainstream media are directly or indirectly affected by this. How many articles have not been published in the past because of the relationships with advertisers? (Hollywood is a big player in this) Now there's a different barrier for stories to get published. Sometimes it's a better thing, other times it's not.

userbinator 9y ago

Remember when "Internet surveillance" was strictly for and "because terrorists"? How long did that last? It still is. Along with children (and child porn in particular), "extremists", drugs, and other things that provoke more emotional than rational thought. These days, almost everything oppressive is done in the name of "security".

kunimu 9y ago
Very true. It is of course not only a US or Western issue. England and Wales have illegalised possession of certain pornographic comics showing children, for example. Australia and Canada have gone so far as to do the same for even possession of stories or diary entries depicting it. This was done solely from the "think of the children!" angle. To those who might respond with the dact that only disgusting people could possibly enjoy such material, Snowden's "saying that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say". It also sets the precedent that the State has the right to decide what art you can possess and produce privately.