4 ms·

The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynam

The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000th the number of users. This effect is new. These platforms are private entities, but effectively they operate as public commons. So culturally we must treat them similar to public commons where it isn't acceptable to kick out quirky characters because some of us don't like what they have to say.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
Yes, and this was problem exists to this day in prevailing cable and newspapers. During the time they were prevalent, unpopular events and speech were not spoken on the biggest networks (still not spoken about) and significant silenced perspectives had to make do with smaller platforms, poorer cable times, smaller venues, and self-publishing newspapers assuming they could fund a printing press. There was not a push to force those networks to host these voices. Yes, it’s an existing problem. I don’t understand why this is a new problem and am confused why this is unacceptable on the level that is new.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  It's not new, but I do believe back in the day there was such a thing as public-access television, and anyone could in fact start their own newspaper without being somehow banned from taking cash payments.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. Public-access television did not mean that anyone can have a show(or was entitled to being shown), either, iirc. They could still start their own newspaper, and the indie/local newspaper cycle is still being perpetuated in artsy or politically leftist circles.
    - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
      >They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. That's a de facto ban and you know it. There have been zero cases in which an internet business has kept itself above-water via asking for checks to be sent to a post-office box. Instead, there should just be a post-office payment processor, operating over the network like all the others, and legally required to serve any customer.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

Yes, and this was problem exists to this day in prevailing cable and newspapers. During the time they were prevalent, unpopular events and speech were not spoken on the biggest networks (still not spoken about) and significant silenced perspectives had to make do with smaller platforms, poorer cable times, smaller venues, and self-publishing newspapers assuming they could fund a printing press. There was not a push to force those networks to host these voices. Yes, it’s an existing problem. I don’t understand why this is a new problem and am confused why this is unacceptable on the level that is new.

eli_gottlieb 8y ago
It's not new, but I do believe back in the day there was such a thing as public-access television, and anyone could in fact start their own newspaper without being somehow banned from taking cash payments.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. Public-access television did not mean that anyone can have a show(or was entitled to being shown), either, iirc. They could still start their own newspaper, and the indie/local newspaper cycle is still being perpetuated in artsy or politically leftist circles.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    >They are still not banned from taking cash payments. They are banned from using a specific cash-taking service. It is still possible to set up a PO box to mail cheques to. That's a de facto ban and you know it. There have been zero cases in which an internet business has kept itself above-water via asking for checks to be sent to a post-office box. Instead, there should just be a post-office payment processor, operating over the network like all the others, and legally required to serve any customer.