3 ms·

I'm completely cool with this, because -All platforms have the right to exercise editorial discretion, and -Those people are awful, and -This will only drive

I'm completely cool with this, because -All platforms have the right to exercise editorial discretion, and -Those people are awful, and -This will only drive the adoption of censorship resistance platforms, which I'm generally in favor of. Free speech is important, but people too often forget about the freedom of association, and its inverse the freedom of non-association. And Medium should have the freedom to not associate with the alt-right any other conspiracy theorists if it chooses to.

dictum 9y ago
While it doesn't violate your argument (freedom of association) I'm less happy about how this isn't specifically about what's published in Medium: the criteria is specific individuals: "We do not allow posts or accounts that engage in on-platform, off-platform" It's the "off-platform" part that bothers me about such policies. Thought experiment: Would Medium ban Henry Kissinger, were he to open an account?
- wombatpm 9y ago
  Only if he was charged with war crimes.
- bmcusick 9y ago
  I am completely, 100% cool with banning people based on "off platform" activity. I know that making Nazi comparisons is cliché, but would you allow a Nazi on your platform even if he only did Nazi stuff off your platform? I wouldn't. There a larger number of people I can amicably disagree with. I'd be unable to function professionally or socially if that weren't the case. But there are limits, and that's fine and good.
scarface74 9y ago
This has nothing to do with people's free speech rights. The constitutional right to free speech only applies to the government not being allowed to take away that tight - not a private company.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  Also quasi-government entities. Like a private town with public areas[0]. If all the "public" "digital town squares" are private, does Marsh v. Alabama apply? The only obvious answer is that that is for the Court to decide -- or Congress, via legislation. Related question: what is the best policy as to social media and censorship thereof by its owners: to regulate or not? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
  - scarface74 9y ago
    I'm against most regulation when it comes to technology. The only time I think the government should step in would be in cases where there is a natural monopoly. For instance, internet service providers like cable companies have a natural monopoly or duopoly at most. The financial and legal restrictions (establishing right of ways) makes it nearly impossible to compete in delivering internet to the last mile. Mobile carriers should also not be allowed to merge. There are only limited frequencies conducive to wireless transmissions -- a new carrier can't really come in if all of the frequencies are licensed.
nikster 9y ago
You're underestimating the problem here. For those of us who have awakened to the fact that mainstream media is a giant shitshow that is literally used to brainwash the masses into agendas of unelected powers, this is a major, major issue. The reason this planet is waking up now is that the media can't be controlled as they used to. People share on facebook, other social media, Medium, youtube - there's no stopping ALL information from coming out! In the past, if you had control of the media, you would control what people were thinking. It's that simple! All media is owned by 6 entities which have very close ties to each other, so it's really just one entity for all purposes. You are falling for an illusion when you think that media is in any way independent or impartial. Media mind control tells you what to think about. You get 2 or 3 prefab opinions that you can have about it, but they control what you're thinking about. You don't get to think about anything else. You don't get to think about things they don't want you to think about. Because they get you up in arms about whatever, they create a grand circus of different opinions, one against another - while you shout at your neighbor, or loudly complain how stupid NRA supporters are, they are doing whatever the hell they want behind the scenes, and nobody even thinks about questioning it. They start entire wars where millions die, while they have you talk about a staged shooting! It's absurd! So Medium going the way of censorship means they have joined the masses, the mainstream, and they are going to be controlled, just like anyone else. There's simply a myriad ways to control the feed once censorship has been established. It's sold to you with images of child molesters and nazis, but it's actually for one purpose only: To control your thinking. Have a good day :)

dictum 9y ago

While it doesn't violate your argument (freedom of association) I'm less happy about how this isn't specifically about what's published in Medium: the criteria is specific individuals: "We do not allow posts or accounts that engage in on-platform, off-platform" It's the "off-platform" part that bothers me about such policies. Thought experiment: Would Medium ban Henry Kissinger, were he to open an account?

wombatpm 9y ago
Only if he was charged with war crimes.
bmcusick 9y ago
I am completely, 100% cool with banning people based on "off platform" activity. I know that making Nazi comparisons is cliché, but would you allow a Nazi on your platform even if he only did Nazi stuff off your platform? I wouldn't. There a larger number of people I can amicably disagree with. I'd be unable to function professionally or socially if that weren't the case. But there are limits, and that's fine and good.

scarface74 9y ago

This has nothing to do with people's free speech rights. The constitutional right to free speech only applies to the government not being allowed to take away that tight - not a private company.

cryptonector 9y ago
Also quasi-government entities. Like a private town with public areas[0]. If all the "public" "digital town squares" are private, does Marsh v. Alabama apply? The only obvious answer is that that is for the Court to decide -- or Congress, via legislation. Related question: what is the best policy as to social media and censorship thereof by its owners: to regulate or not? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- scarface74 9y ago
  I'm against most regulation when it comes to technology. The only time I think the government should step in would be in cases where there is a natural monopoly. For instance, internet service providers like cable companies have a natural monopoly or duopoly at most. The financial and legal restrictions (establishing right of ways) makes it nearly impossible to compete in delivering internet to the last mile. Mobile carriers should also not be allowed to merge. There are only limited frequencies conducive to wireless transmissions -- a new carrier can't really come in if all of the frequencies are licensed.

nikster 9y ago

You're underestimating the problem here. For those of us who have awakened to the fact that mainstream media is a giant shitshow that is literally used to brainwash the masses into agendas of unelected powers, this is a major, major issue. The reason this planet is waking up now is that the media can't be controlled as they used to. People share on facebook, other social media, Medium, youtube - there's no stopping ALL information from coming out! In the past, if you had control of the media, you would control what people were thinking. It's that simple! All media is owned by 6 entities which have very close ties to each other, so it's really just one entity for all purposes. You are falling for an illusion when you think that media is in any way independent or impartial. Media mind control tells you what to think about. You get 2 or 3 prefab opinions that you can have about it, but they control what you're thinking about. You don't get to think about anything else. You don't get to think about things they don't want you to think about. Because they get you up in arms about whatever, they create a grand circus of different opinions, one against another - while you shout at your neighbor, or loudly complain how stupid NRA supporters are, they are doing whatever the hell they want behind the scenes, and nobody even thinks about questioning it. They start entire wars where millions die, while they have you talk about a staged shooting! It's absurd! So Medium going the way of censorship means they have joined the masses, the mainstream, and they are going to be controlled, just like anyone else. There's simply a myriad ways to control the feed once censorship has been established. It's sold to you with images of child molesters and nazis, but it's actually for one purpose only: To control your thinking. Have a good day :)