5 ms·

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press cri

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of Re/code has been on a personal crusade to get YouTube and Facebook to get adhere to her standards of content). It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.

moomin 9y ago
You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints? What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Sounds like they want you censored for asking questions.
  - moomin 9y ago
    If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      >on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions Where did I argue that? Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.
Haydos585x2 9y ago
The web still exists very much as it was. You could set up your own site and host any kind of weapons content you wanted assuming it fits with your local legislation. YouTube has no obligation to host your content. It's annoying that the best/most popular/easiest to use video service won't support you/these weapons channels but I don't think it really impacts on _free speech_. Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?
- macspoofing 9y ago
  You missed my point. I'm saying companies like YouTube and Reddit wanted to be those kinds of neutral platforms. They just got beaten down and that's kind of sad.
- ptero 9y ago
  > The web still exists very much as it was. As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and media are putting pressure on it to do so. This, in my book, is wrong. Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.
  - mindways 9y ago
    "Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them." Agreed, but "I won't provide a platform for this speech" is not "suppressing". If I put up a bulletin board in my front yard and encourage my neighbors to post things there, in general it's eminently reasonable for me to decide that certain things can't be posted - even if my bulletin board becomes the most popular one in town. (But if it's made "the official town news source" and local government makes certain posting certain things illegal, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.) Tangentially, there's a 4th option you don't mention for messages one disagrees with - censuring them. (As in "actively and visibly disapproving" - not "censoring"!) For some types of message, the most appropriate response is a firm, unmistakable "That isn't welcome here" / "That's a terrible thing to say" followed by no discussion whatsoever. (Eg: when arguing lends a platform / legitimacy, but ignoring implies acquiescence.)
GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.
- mike10010100 9y ago
  It's because they're beholden to advertisers rather than their users.
  - CompanionCuuube 9y ago
    The advertisers are the consumers, the users are the product.
- Scoundreller 9y ago
  The media companies may have killed Napster, but that had no long term effect on piracy. 1 provider falls and 5 more grow from the ashes, less vulnerable than their predecessor. It plays out the same way every time.
webbles 9y ago
Notice how you didn't mention the neo-nazis, general racists, and harassing scumbags. Shows how big of a piece of shit you are.
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
That seems like a missaligned view. The internet from the 90s and turn of the century is still around; hell the tools for creating federated communities and reaching niche groups are stronger than ever. The likes of Reddit, Youtube at least on the scale to which they pivoted to companies looking to make cash, were never really part of that set. I'd go so far as to say the early communities of the internet were, as a rule, more moderated (either explicitly or implicitly) that even these new rules. Whoever hosts the service (and as a corollary those that pay them) determines the moderation. The thing about "free speech" (taken to mean unmoderated speech) is that's not something you can build a healthy community on top of. No one got "torn down" by nebulous "mainstream" forces; it's just bad business. All hail the invisible hand of capitalism.

moomin 9y ago

You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.

macspoofing 9y ago
I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints? What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Sounds like they want you censored for asking questions.
- moomin 9y ago
  If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    >on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions Where did I argue that? Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.

Haydos585x2 9y ago

The web still exists very much as it was. You could set up your own site and host any kind of weapons content you wanted assuming it fits with your local legislation. YouTube has no obligation to host your content. It's annoying that the best/most popular/easiest to use video service won't support you/these weapons channels but I don't think it really impacts on _free speech_. Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?

macspoofing 9y ago
You missed my point. I'm saying companies like YouTube and Reddit wanted to be those kinds of neutral platforms. They just got beaten down and that's kind of sad.
ptero 9y ago
> The web still exists very much as it was. As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and media are putting pressure on it to do so. This, in my book, is wrong. Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.
- mindways 9y ago
  "Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them." Agreed, but "I won't provide a platform for this speech" is not "suppressing". If I put up a bulletin board in my front yard and encourage my neighbors to post things there, in general it's eminently reasonable for me to decide that certain things can't be posted - even if my bulletin board becomes the most popular one in town. (But if it's made "the official town news source" and local government makes certain posting certain things illegal, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.) Tangentially, there's a 4th option you don't mention for messages one disagrees with - censuring them. (As in "actively and visibly disapproving" - not "censoring"!) For some types of message, the most appropriate response is a firm, unmistakable "That isn't welcome here" / "That's a terrible thing to say" followed by no discussion whatsoever. (Eg: when arguing lends a platform / legitimacy, but ignoring implies acquiescence.)

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago

The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.

mike10010100 9y ago
It's because they're beholden to advertisers rather than their users.
- CompanionCuuube 9y ago
  The advertisers are the consumers, the users are the product.
Scoundreller 9y ago
The media companies may have killed Napster, but that had no long term effect on piracy. 1 provider falls and 5 more grow from the ashes, less vulnerable than their predecessor. It plays out the same way every time.

webbles 9y ago

Notice how you didn't mention the neo-nazis, general racists, and harassing scumbags. Shows how big of a piece of shit you are.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

That seems like a missaligned view. The internet from the 90s and turn of the century is still around; hell the tools for creating federated communities and reaching niche groups are stronger than ever. The likes of Reddit, Youtube at least on the scale to which they pivoted to companies looking to make cash, were never really part of that set. I'd go so far as to say the early communities of the internet were, as a rule, more moderated (either explicitly or implicitly) that even these new rules. Whoever hosts the service (and as a corollary those that pay them) determines the moderation. The thing about "free speech" (taken to mean unmoderated speech) is that's not something you can build a healthy community on top of. No one got "torn down" by nebulous "mainstream" forces; it's just bad business. All hail the invisible hand of capitalism.