4 ms·

It's only recently that people have started to assign blame and responsibility to the platform hosting the content (really only after the US election drama). B

by borplk 8y ago

It's only recently that people have started to assign blame and responsibility to the platform hosting the content (really only after the US election drama). Back in the earlier days of the internet the attitude was quite different. It was all celebrated free speech and "anyone is empowered to do anything it's all open and free and happy for everybody and there's some bad stuff so what" (happy early Web 2.0 days where the web was moving from static pages to "textboxes and submit buttons"). Now a pin drops and 50 publications write an "Facebook negligently allowed someone to ... they must be held accountable and regulated and broken apart" article. It's just a mindless pendulum swing. Those of us in the middle always get the shit. Back in the day we got blamed for saying anything against the "open and free and rainbows for all humanity" rhetoric and now it's gone to the other side.

aylmao 8y ago
> Now a pin drops and 50 publications write an "Facebook negligently allowed someone to ... they must be held accountable and regulated and broken apart" article. I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. There's debate of course; does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? Does this make Facebook a media company vs a communications platform? I do think that a lot of the outcry I've been hearing against these open communication mediums have come from old media more so than from the average person.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  > does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? there are quite a few independent YouTube news channels I trust far more for showing me the truth than any giant network with vested interests. two examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  >I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. The funny thing is, those internet companies had a chance to show the media they're not be seen as publications. But the platforms didn't. They wanted an out that let them exercise power over content at the discretion of the people in control of the platform. It's the cost-benefit tradeoff they signed up for. And now other entities are exercising their soft power over the platform to get them to exercise power over the content on the platform.
- makomk 8y ago
  They're definitely not judging the internet like a media publication; for the most part, they're quite happy to defend almost anything their fellow publications do. They're treating it like a dangerous new threat that's not part of their clique and is eating directly into their profit margins. Compare, for example, how they cover Google and Facebook's compliance with the GDPR and abuse of personal data with how they cover publications doing the same. For instance Fortune and Forbes are doing some heiniously noncompliant stuff in order to ensure they can use people's personal info for profit, but this doesn't seem to be getting any coverage. In order to view this very article, you must go through a forced-consent wall of the very kind the GDPR forbids.
bluntfang 8y ago
>It's only recently that people have started to assign blame and responsibility to the platform hosting the content (really only after the US election drama). Pretty certain 4chan would have been shut down and held responsible if they did not cooperate with the FBI in reporting and moderating cheese pizza a long time ago (at least 2010).

by borplk 8y ago

aylmao 8y ago

> Now a pin drops and 50 publications write an "Facebook negligently allowed someone to ... they must be held accountable and regulated and broken apart" article. I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. There's debate of course; does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? Does this make Facebook a media company vs a communications platform? I do think that a lot of the outcry I've been hearing against these open communication mediums have come from old media more so than from the average person.

gnarbarian 8y ago
> does the sorting of the newsfeed equate editorial curation? there are quite a few independent YouTube news channels I trust far more for showing me the truth than any giant network with vested interests. two examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts https://www.youtube.com/user/Timcasts
forgottenpass 8y ago
>I think part of it is this; those "50 publications" --the media-- is paying attention now, and they judge the internet like a media publication and not a forum. The funny thing is, those internet companies had a chance to show the media they're not be seen as publications. But the platforms didn't. They wanted an out that let them exercise power over content at the discretion of the people in control of the platform. It's the cost-benefit tradeoff they signed up for. And now other entities are exercising their soft power over the platform to get them to exercise power over the content on the platform.
makomk 8y ago
They're definitely not judging the internet like a media publication; for the most part, they're quite happy to defend almost anything their fellow publications do. They're treating it like a dangerous new threat that's not part of their clique and is eating directly into their profit margins. Compare, for example, how they cover Google and Facebook's compliance with the GDPR and abuse of personal data with how they cover publications doing the same. For instance Fortune and Forbes are doing some heiniously noncompliant stuff in order to ensure they can use people's personal info for profit, but this doesn't seem to be getting any coverage. In order to view this very article, you must go through a forced-consent wall of the very kind the GDPR forbids.

bluntfang 8y ago

>It's only recently that people have started to assign blame and responsibility to the platform hosting the content (really only after the US election drama). Pretty certain 4chan would have been shut down and held responsible if they did not cooperate with the FBI in reporting and moderating cheese pizza a long time ago (at least 2010).