3 ms·
Claiming that one can meaningfully express free speech without relying on corporations is delusion. If you aren't wielding the megaphone that is twitter/fb/you
by missosoup 7y ago
Claiming that one can meaningfully express free speech without relying on corporations is delusion.
If you aren't wielding the megaphone that is twitter/fb/youtube/whatever, then you are not going to be heard. That's just a fact at this point. Social media has in fact lowered the barrier to entry for expressing speech to large audiences, because before social media there were only newspapers and TV networks that cost significantly more and had significantly more preference towards specific agendas.
I understand the ideological desire for that not to be the case, and maybe society could stop and think how to fulfil that desire, but ignoring the facts of today is not constructive at all.
- sjwright 7y agoI'm not ignoring facts; I agree we're probably never going to get away from a society where the "real" free speech is a privilege of the wealthy. I only seek to remind us of the principles which run deeper than the specific challenges of this moment.
- docbrown 7y ago> If you aren't wielding the megaphone that is twitter/fb/youtube/whatever, then you are not going to be heard. That's just a fact at this point. I disagree. This is only a blanket statement to be taken as fact. Politicians have been doing town halls, focus groups, and public speeches for decades. Just because we suddenly have social media sites to project their voices to a mich larger audience doesn’t erase all of those. While spending on digital ads have gone up tremendously i’m sure, if we take them out of the equation, people will still be able to hear their candidates voices. Social media websites are not the be-all and end-all of political discourse.