5 ms·

I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, reg

by npunt 8y ago

I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein. Filtering mechanisms exist in all forums, online and offline. Some suck, like certain sub-communities in youtube. The discussion should be about what filters we employ to best balance the positive value of conversation against the negative.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein. If that "reach" should not be available to "anybody, regardless of content therein", then the logical and unavoidable conclusion there is some person or organization that has to decide what people and content are allowed access. You can hardly dodge the logical implications of your own statement.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  Do you have a specific point? Or just picking a nit? There are vastly different ways in which the flow of communication between people or groups of people can be impacted, and the differences between these ways can be very important. Because of this, sweeping generalizations don't seem very helpful.
- nl 8y ago
  This is absolutely not the case. Reach is about broadcast. There are plenty of non-authoritarian ways to reduce reach. The most obvious one is to make people pay for it (like they do on Facebook). Community moderation is another, and trust metrics is yet another. All have tradeoffs, but - since you are nitpicking here - it isn't a logical and unavoidable conclusion that this has to be a decision about allowed access.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    Yes, let's institute zones of allowed speech. While we're at it, if you'd like to protest the White House, let's make it so that you're allowed to do so but your protest must fit within a 9' by 9' space that must be a minimum of 500 feet from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No carried signs may extend above 8' from the floor and your total volume must remain below 90dB. Make sure you optimize your protest space to have the loudest (but not too loud), boldest (but not too bold) voices, otherwise it will diminish your potential impact. Lest you go to an argument about public vs private property, in our society, social media _is_ the public forum... Just as when these laws were written, public spaces were.
    - bloat 8y ago
      To use reductio ad absurdum on your argument for a minute: Everyone in the world has an earpiece which they must wear at all times. Everyone has a microphone which automatically broadcasts everything they say to everyone's earpiece. You can't take your earpiece off, as that would reduce someone else's ability to speak freely to you. There are downsides to allowing everyone a global platform.
      - cf141q5325 8y ago
        This assumes, that giving someone free speech forces you to listen to it. Do you have an example of where this happens to you?
        bloat 8y ago
        Not, not forced, but then I did say it was an absurd example. Slightly different qualitatively from my hypothetical: there are plenty of examples of unwanted speech appearing in places, and while they are not forced to actually read it, the "owners" of those places are unable to stop it. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/27/facebook-anti-vaxx-harassment-campaigns-doctors-fight-back https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/27/facebook-...
        cf141q5325 8y ago

by npunt 8y ago

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein. If that "reach" should not be available to "anybody, regardless of content therein", then the logical and unavoidable conclusion there is some person or organization that has to decide what people and content are allowed access. You can hardly dodge the logical implications of your own statement.

dwaltrip 8y ago
Do you have a specific point? Or just picking a nit? There are vastly different ways in which the flow of communication between people or groups of people can be impacted, and the differences between these ways can be very important. Because of this, sweeping generalizations don't seem very helpful.
nl 8y ago
This is absolutely not the case. Reach is about broadcast. There are plenty of non-authoritarian ways to reduce reach. The most obvious one is to make people pay for it (like they do on Facebook). Community moderation is another, and trust metrics is yet another. All have tradeoffs, but - since you are nitpicking here - it isn't a logical and unavoidable conclusion that this has to be a decision about allowed access.
- busterarm 8y ago
  Yes, let's institute zones of allowed speech. While we're at it, if you'd like to protest the White House, let's make it so that you're allowed to do so but your protest must fit within a 9' by 9' space that must be a minimum of 500 feet from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. No carried signs may extend above 8' from the floor and your total volume must remain below 90dB. Make sure you optimize your protest space to have the loudest (but not too loud), boldest (but not too bold) voices, otherwise it will diminish your potential impact. Lest you go to an argument about public vs private property, in our society, social media _is_ the public forum... Just as when these laws were written, public spaces were.
  - bloat 8y ago
    To use reductio ad absurdum on your argument for a minute: Everyone in the world has an earpiece which they must wear at all times. Everyone has a microphone which automatically broadcasts everything they say to everyone's earpiece. You can't take your earpiece off, as that would reduce someone else's ability to speak freely to you. There are downsides to allowing everyone a global platform.
    - cf141q5325 8y ago
      This assumes, that giving someone free speech forces you to listen to it. Do you have an example of where this happens to you?
      - bloat 8y ago
        Not, not forced, but then I did say it was an absurd example. Slightly different qualitatively from my hypothetical: there are plenty of examples of unwanted speech appearing in places, and while they are not forced to actually read it, the "owners" of those places are unable to stop it. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/27/facebook-anti-vaxx-harassment-campaigns-doctors-fight-back https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/27/facebook-...
        cf141q5325 8y ago