4 ms·

In the subtitle of this article, the author asks "How 'neutral' should social-media platforms try to be?" I asked a similar question in a blog post[1] using di

In the subtitle of this article, the author asks "How 'neutral' should social-media platforms try to be?" I asked a similar question in a blog post[1] using different terms. Should "platforms" just be flat platforms, or should they curate their content like a publisher? If they don't, can they make money? Can they pay content creators decently while still remaining a platform, or is that something only a publisher can do? I don't know that there's a good answer. [1] https://wilsocr88.github.io/#0/7 https://wilsocr88.github.io/#0/7

basch 7y ago
the world has already decided that they should be curated. the question is now, "at what level we make the distinction." no product does client side spam determination anymore. everyone agrees that spam, fraud, phishing have no legitimate place. we have a dial, and even on the "free speech" end of things, people agree it shouldnt be turned up far enough to allow all noise.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  the world has already decided that they should be curated. the question is now, "at what level we make the distinction." Why should it be at any level besides that of legality, or those levels analogous to movie ratings? everyone agrees that spam, fraud, phishing have no legitimate place Those are issues of non-consensual activity. What YouTube, Patreon, PayPal, Facebook, et al. have done includes the suppression of content people want to see and are even willing to pay for. They've even gone farther and not let them pay. By going against the consent of the public, they've moved themselves in the same immoral direction as the spammers, fraudsters, and phishers. They're doing what large swathes of the public don't want done to their access to data. (Merely in order to get advertising dollars from other large corporations, I might add.) It's just that they currently look more legitimate, as they slowly creep in that immoral direction. we have a dial, and even on the "free speech" end of things, people agree it shouldnt be turned up far enough to allow all noise There are disingenuous actors who want that power over almost all the relevant discourse, and wish to turn that dial in such a way that they hold the power. It doesn't matter if they've convinced themselves they'll wield it in a "good" way. No one should have it. That's what Free Speech is all about.
  - RealWorldPolice 7y ago
    "Merely in order to get advertising dollars" What else would you expect from an internet advertising company?
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      Stopping short of misrepresenting what they're doing. Stopping short of arbitrary enforcement. (Which means keeping employees from (apparently) arbitrarily using company mechanisms to further their own ideological ends.) Stopping short of meddling in payments handled by another company. (Which looks a bit too much like tortious interference.) If the companies were merely driven by profit motive and getting ad dollars, it would be fine. It's the manipulation of the public discourse which people object to and feels slimy.
- samlevine 7y ago
  If my email provider decides to stop delivering my email because the person emailing me is a crank I'm going to get another email provider. Because they're a platform for email, not a publisher of email. I don't want a YouTube that is a publisher because at that point it ceases being my tube and starts being their tube. This defeats what makes YouTube so special.
  - basch 7y ago
    Your email provider blocks thousands of emails it thinks you dont want. Youtube blocks copywritten material on upload. Those are things a publisher does (reduce noise, detect plagiarism.)

basch 7y ago

the world has already decided that they should be curated. the question is now, "at what level we make the distinction." no product does client side spam determination anymore. everyone agrees that spam, fraud, phishing have no legitimate place. we have a dial, and even on the "free speech" end of things, people agree it shouldnt be turned up far enough to allow all noise.

stcredzero 7y ago
the world has already decided that they should be curated. the question is now, "at what level we make the distinction." Why should it be at any level besides that of legality, or those levels analogous to movie ratings? everyone agrees that spam, fraud, phishing have no legitimate place Those are issues of non-consensual activity. What YouTube, Patreon, PayPal, Facebook, et al. have done includes the suppression of content people want to see and are even willing to pay for. They've even gone farther and not let them pay. By going against the consent of the public, they've moved themselves in the same immoral direction as the spammers, fraudsters, and phishers. They're doing what large swathes of the public don't want done to their access to data. (Merely in order to get advertising dollars from other large corporations, I might add.) It's just that they currently look more legitimate, as they slowly creep in that immoral direction. we have a dial, and even on the "free speech" end of things, people agree it shouldnt be turned up far enough to allow all noise There are disingenuous actors who want that power over almost all the relevant discourse, and wish to turn that dial in such a way that they hold the power. It doesn't matter if they've convinced themselves they'll wield it in a "good" way. No one should have it. That's what Free Speech is all about.
- RealWorldPolice 7y ago
  "Merely in order to get advertising dollars" What else would you expect from an internet advertising company?
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    Stopping short of misrepresenting what they're doing. Stopping short of arbitrary enforcement. (Which means keeping employees from (apparently) arbitrarily using company mechanisms to further their own ideological ends.) Stopping short of meddling in payments handled by another company. (Which looks a bit too much like tortious interference.) If the companies were merely driven by profit motive and getting ad dollars, it would be fine. It's the manipulation of the public discourse which people object to and feels slimy.
samlevine 7y ago
If my email provider decides to stop delivering my email because the person emailing me is a crank I'm going to get another email provider. Because they're a platform for email, not a publisher of email. I don't want a YouTube that is a publisher because at that point it ceases being my tube and starts being their tube. This defeats what makes YouTube so special.
- basch 7y ago
  Your email provider blocks thousands of emails it thinks you dont want. Youtube blocks copywritten material on upload. Those are things a publisher does (reduce noise, detect plagiarism.)