4 ms·

Are people not deciding what people should watch / read / consume? Netflix chooses which shows to show in its spotlight section / email blast. TV stations deci

Are people not deciding what people should watch / read / consume? Netflix chooses which shows to show in its spotlight section / email blast. TV stations decide which shows to put in prime time slots. Newspaper editors decide which articles get placed where. Your friends decide which articles to share in their feed (and thus expose you to them). Companies advertise their products on TV, create retail spaces in our neighborhoods, to entice us to consume their products. If you’re worried about a world in which people decide these things for others, the sad reality is: we’re already in that world.

dmix 8y ago
Editorialization is far, far different than outside parties or platforms controlling content... The key difference is that editorializing affects individual outlets, or groups of outlets under one owner. In that case other parties can simply create the own competing outlets to provide a balance, aka a marketplace of ideas. But when it's a top down control from government or mega-corps then the controls applies across the entire marketplace and across all organizations/mediums, and is therefore far more harmful, open to abuse, and ultimately chills speech. Not to mention in the top-down scenario the source of what's "appropriate content" is usually the most vocal special interest groups, lobbyists, or worse the latest public outrage of the day - not some editor/company trying to deliver what they think consumers want most. But instead other parties trying to control what content other people should and should not be allowed to produce/consume. The only way to push back is by rallying your own outrage, lobbyists, and special interest groups - a highly unoptimal process, valuing the powerful and entrenched parties, not what is "right" and moral. And if history is any indication, bad laws/regulations rarely get removed anywhere near as quickly as they are added.

dmix 8y ago

Editorialization is far, far different than outside parties or platforms controlling content... The key difference is that editorializing affects individual outlets, or groups of outlets under one owner. In that case other parties can simply create the own competing outlets to provide a balance, aka a marketplace of ideas. But when it's a top down control from government or mega-corps then the controls applies across the entire marketplace and across all organizations/mediums, and is therefore far more harmful, open to abuse, and ultimately chills speech. Not to mention in the top-down scenario the source of what's "appropriate content" is usually the most vocal special interest groups, lobbyists, or worse the latest public outrage of the day - not some editor/company trying to deliver what they think consumers want most. But instead other parties trying to control what content other people should and should not be allowed to produce/consume. The only way to push back is by rallying your own outrage, lobbyists, and special interest groups - a highly unoptimal process, valuing the powerful and entrenched parties, not what is "right" and moral. And if history is any indication, bad laws/regulations rarely get removed anywhere near as quickly as they are added.