4 ms·
This is a good argument for decentralization of media outlets. The internet was almost this. However, when ISPs began barring subscribers from running a small w
by LocalH 8y ago
This is a good argument for decentralization of media outlets. The internet was almost this. However, when ISPs began barring subscribers from running a small webserver, that was the beginning of the end of the internet decentralization experiment.
Not to mention that we're rapidly reaching a climate that not only correctly says "platform X doesn't have to publish what you write" to "if you are bad, we will not only prevent major platforms from publishing you, but we'll go after any host who does publish you, and destroy them"
- kajecounterhack 8y ago> we're rapidly reaching a climate that not only correctly says "platform X doesn't have to publish what you write" to "if you are bad, we will not only prevent major platforms from publishing you, but we'll go after any host who does publish you, and destroy them" If some non-zero number of people get upset that publication X does Y, that doesn't mean they are actually able to "go after any host who publishes and destroy them." They just make a lot of noise. Take for example NYT hiring Sarah Jeong. There's opposition, but she's publishing there now. However if someone is racist, and faces backlash because of that, and enough critical mass of people say "listen I don't want to read a publication that gives voice to racists" then there's nothing wrong with that. Racists can always publish to Breitbart/Fox/whatever publication allows that (s/racist and those media outlets/whatever satisfies your own politics/r, you catch my drift). Or they can shout it in a public place, print pamphlets, or write a fucking blog. Free speech means they can do those things, but not necessarily force it onto a specific platform.