5 ms·

I'd love to see your equivalent ancestor in the 1640s when Milton published the Areopagitica.^1 > Reading this polemic is liketh watching someone did beat the

I'd love to see your equivalent ancestor in the 1640s when Milton published the Areopagitica.^1 > Reading this polemic is liketh watching someone did beat the ocean with a stick. What wouldst behold liketh for an initiative contra-contra-press-freedom to succeedeth? All ideas havest equal access to all presses? Just the large enou ones? The objective is so po'rly formed, t's not coequal wrong. > A Land's identity and ability to attracteth God's Grace art determin'd by the activities those gents accepteth & cultivateth, not vice versa. The Papists did want to print on Protestant English Presses because it madeth it easier to selleth thy grandparents heresies & indulgences, but Protestant English Presses hath felt leaving those folk on maketh it a lodging families (and yon grandparents) willst not visiteth. The abbots of Shrewsbury wouldst liketh to useth the Bank of England because those gents art trust'd payment provid'rs, but those bankers hath felt those servicing said monastery would halt their intellection of being said trust payment provid'rs if it be true that those gents allow'd Papists to stayeth on. > And there be plenty of reasoneth to bethink those gents're right: permissive Lands existeth and work (the Savages in the colonies et. al), those gents just attracteth not the same Salvation as Proper English Lands. At which hour people complaineth about being censored, those gents're just declaring "the Lands that accepteth me aren't popular enow". I'm fain our World is enow of a Terra Incognita that many Lands art broadly accessible -- but nobody owes thee an audience on English soils. --- 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

evrydayhustling 8y ago
Wow, that is an edudite reference and a flatteringly thorough translation. But, taken seriously, the comparison of anti-deplatformers (can y'all make up a catchy name?) to Milton is facile. Milton was fighting for the right to distribute his work, you're fighting for the right to be distributed by others. I'm fully against forceably preventing folks from speaking, and support of investing in protocols so that others can voluntarily associate with them. But they can get their own damn printing press.
- froasty 8y ago
  How are those not synonymous in this day and age? The point of freedom of expression is not inhibiting the right to an audience or explicitly interferring in the marketplace of ideas in civil society. Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, especially in light of the role of Chapter 47 in the history of the freedom of the Internet.^1 And let's be clear, this isn't a case of the use of a service depriving other more worthy parties of using said service. It is Shaw's comparison between apples and ideas.^2 And it is attempting to tear down a universal principle to make it accountable to shifting tastes and moral fads which makes everyone guilty eventually. --- 1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 2 - “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”
  - jasode 8y ago
    >Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, It isn't absurd because an example of such an injury happened last year at YouTube with the "adpocalypse" demonetization debacle.[1] - Various uploaders put objectionable content on Youtube. Google/Youtube doesn't censor or filter it out. - Viewers complain loudly about it and threaten to boycott the major advertisers that ran ads against it (e.g. Proctor & Gamble, etc) - P&G and other advertisers abandon Youtube and Google loses millions[2]. The innocent Youtube channel creators who created mainstream content also lost AdSense reveneue because they got caught up in the stricter content crackdown. - Some advertisers finally return. E.g. P&G after one year.[3] Facebook and Twitter can't realistically be an "any and all free speech including hate speech" platform because they are beholden to advertisers. They have the same platform funding dependence as Youtube/Google. Those social media websites are not in the lower layer of the TCPIP stack such as "common carriers" ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. Those "dumb pipes" telecom businesses are less sensitive to whether a TCPIP packet is routing bytes for hate speech vs pictures of cats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...

evrydayhustling 8y ago

Wow, that is an edudite reference and a flatteringly thorough translation. But, taken seriously, the comparison of anti-deplatformers (can y'all make up a catchy name?) to Milton is facile. Milton was fighting for the right to distribute his work, you're fighting for the right to be distributed by others. I'm fully against forceably preventing folks from speaking, and support of investing in protocols so that others can voluntarily associate with them. But they can get their own damn printing press.

froasty 8y ago
How are those not synonymous in this day and age? The point of freedom of expression is not inhibiting the right to an audience or explicitly interferring in the marketplace of ideas in civil society. Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, especially in light of the role of Chapter 47 in the history of the freedom of the Internet.^1 And let's be clear, this isn't a case of the use of a service depriving other more worthy parties of using said service. It is Shaw's comparison between apples and ideas.^2 And it is attempting to tear down a universal principle to make it accountable to shifting tastes and moral fads which makes everyone guilty eventually. --- 1 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 2 - “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.”
- jasode 8y ago
  >Saying that Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, et. al face any actual injury or diminution in service as a result of hosting pernicious speech is absurd, It isn't absurd because an example of such an injury happened last year at YouTube with the "adpocalypse" demonetization debacle.[1] - Various uploaders put objectionable content on Youtube. Google/Youtube doesn't censor or filter it out. - Viewers complain loudly about it and threaten to boycott the major advertisers that ran ads against it (e.g. Proctor & Gamble, etc) - P&G and other advertisers abandon Youtube and Google loses millions[2]. The innocent Youtube channel creators who created mainstream content also lost AdSense reveneue because they got caught up in the stricter content crackdown. - Some advertisers finally return. E.g. P&G after one year.[3] Facebook and Twitter can't realistically be an "any and all free speech including hate speech" platform because they are beholden to advertisers. They have the same platform funding dependence as Youtube/Google. Those social media websites are not in the lower layer of the TCPIP stack such as "common carriers" ISPs like Comcast and Verizon. Those "dumb pipes" telecom businesses are less sensitive to whether a TCPIP packet is routing bytes for hate speech vs pictures of cats. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertiser-friendly_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#Advertise... [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+youtube+adpocalypse https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+advertisers+abandon+... [3] https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spend-new-ad-controversy/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2018/04/20/pg-resumes-youtube-spe...