3 ms·

I don't know how to solve that because I think that no one forces newspapers to accept articles from people they think are crazy. I don't think this is tangent

I don't know how to solve that because I think that no one forces newspapers to accept articles from people they think are crazy. I don't think this is tangential... I don't think this necessarily resolves to a perfectly fundamental principle, in a philosophically loophole-free way. Maybe a newspaper isn't a good analogy. Here's one example. A large portion of elected officials around the world communicates with (and mostly to) their electorate mostly on social media. It is how they get elected, argue positions, etc. The argument (I'm not sure I agree, but I think there's an argument) is that twitter, fb, etc have crossed some sort of the threshold where there is a lot at stake.

bargl 8y ago
This is a good point. I think some people treat facebook and twitter as their main news source which is why I drew that correlation. The twitter blast out by politicians is a new thing, that hasn't really existed before from what I can see. It's common to try to draw a parallel to something that arleady exists (like I did). I think you're right that my example was a miss.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  Cheers bargl. I don't think it is a clear miss. The way we think of law, and right-and-wrong generally, tends to be principled. Rules and laws as embodiments of abstract principles that are consistently true. That's what the analogy does is check for inconsistencies. That's what lawyers do, argue by analogy. High judges can invalidate laws if they create inconsistencies. But... the laws aren't really abstract truths. They tend to be point solutions to specific problems. Social media has created new realities that just didn't exist in as meaningful a firm before. Personally, I'm happy that proprietary social media platforms just get replaced by open platforms a la WWW or email. There's no real reason to have a multi billion dollar company behind twitter, text messaging and such. That'd make the choice between bureaucratic or monopolistic control moot.

bargl 8y ago

This is a good point. I think some people treat facebook and twitter as their main news source which is why I drew that correlation. The twitter blast out by politicians is a new thing, that hasn't really existed before from what I can see. It's common to try to draw a parallel to something that arleady exists (like I did). I think you're right that my example was a miss.

dalbasal 8y ago
Cheers bargl. I don't think it is a clear miss. The way we think of law, and right-and-wrong generally, tends to be principled. Rules and laws as embodiments of abstract principles that are consistently true. That's what the analogy does is check for inconsistencies. That's what lawyers do, argue by analogy. High judges can invalidate laws if they create inconsistencies. But... the laws aren't really abstract truths. They tend to be point solutions to specific problems. Social media has created new realities that just didn't exist in as meaningful a firm before. Personally, I'm happy that proprietary social media platforms just get replaced by open platforms a la WWW or email. There's no real reason to have a multi billion dollar company behind twitter, text messaging and such. That'd make the choice between bureaucratic or monopolistic control moot.