2 ms·

This is an equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome issue. Part of competing in the current marketplace of ideas isn't just the quality of your idea

This is an equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome issue. Part of competing in the current marketplace of ideas isn't just the quality of your idea it's your ability to market it. Whether you particularly like that aspect of our public discourse is irrelevant to the current state. The difference here is that the toolkit of getting your message amplified has a much lower bar to entry now than it did before (a nobody with a good tweet can get their video or soundcloud profile in front of millions of eyes). It's probably the case that we're just seeing a shift in the mix of actors who hold power, but the trend has been towards it being easier for people to enter the fight. My assumption is that the easier it is for people to participate the more we'll trend towards a steady state where the quality of your ideas and your ability to sell them will be the deciding factor in your reach. As opposed to having a dominant advantage because your [race | social caste | profession | political party] has captured the medium of communication and intellectual production. Unfortunately I think we're seeing those groups (2,3, and 4 primarily) lashing out and trying to maintain their advantage to the general detriment of society.

helen___keller 7y ago
> My assumption is that the easier it is for people to participate the more we'll trend towards a steady state where the quality of your ideas and your ability to sell them will be the deciding factor in your reach. As opposed to having a dominant advantage because your [race | social caste | profession | political party] has captured the medium of communication and intellectual production. Unfortunately I think we're seeing those groups (2,3, and 4 primarily) lashing out and trying to maintain their advantage to the general detriment of society. I agree with the last part of this but maybe not the first. I think it's pretty presumptive that just because anybody can put content out there that there will be anything close to an even playing field. Only time will tell. For an early internet example: the distributed nature of the internet meant that in theory anybody could create and publish their own platform. Anyone with good ideas should easily be able to buy a domain and enter the web marketplace. In the modern world, only a few websites dominate the vast majority of eyeballs. This isn't how it has to be, but this is how reality has played out. If you want a platform with users you need at minimum to treat it like a part time job, and possibly a few million in venture capital to boot. Or, to put it another way, centralization was a more powerful force than quality in choice of platform. I argue this may happen to some degree with content itself (or likely already does. Look at top YouTube channels and decide for yourself.) There's no doubting that modern internet and modern discourse is in theory open, but I find a lot of doubt that it's open in practice. I can't help but read an upvoted link on Reddit and wonder if there's an upvote farm behind it or social marketing firm carefully crafting it, as opposed to an individuals voice. Some platforms have even higher barriers to entry, like YouTube or twitch.tv, good luck getting more than 10 views as an individual there unless you make it atleast a part time job. But I'm sure a well funded source can make a video that looks like a small time content creator but pushes their view or their product.

helen___keller 7y ago

> My assumption is that the easier it is for people to participate the more we'll trend towards a steady state where the quality of your ideas and your ability to sell them will be the deciding factor in your reach. As opposed to having a dominant advantage because your [race | social caste | profession | political party] has captured the medium of communication and intellectual production. Unfortunately I think we're seeing those groups (2,3, and 4 primarily) lashing out and trying to maintain their advantage to the general detriment of society. I agree with the last part of this but maybe not the first. I think it's pretty presumptive that just because anybody can put content out there that there will be anything close to an even playing field. Only time will tell. For an early internet example: the distributed nature of the internet meant that in theory anybody could create and publish their own platform. Anyone with good ideas should easily be able to buy a domain and enter the web marketplace. In the modern world, only a few websites dominate the vast majority of eyeballs. This isn't how it has to be, but this is how reality has played out. If you want a platform with users you need at minimum to treat it like a part time job, and possibly a few million in venture capital to boot. Or, to put it another way, centralization was a more powerful force than quality in choice of platform. I argue this may happen to some degree with content itself (or likely already does. Look at top YouTube channels and decide for yourself.) There's no doubting that modern internet and modern discourse is in theory open, but I find a lot of doubt that it's open in practice. I can't help but read an upvoted link on Reddit and wonder if there's an upvote farm behind it or social marketing firm carefully crafting it, as opposed to an individuals voice. Some platforms have even higher barriers to entry, like YouTube or twitch.tv, good luck getting more than 10 views as an individual there unless you make it atleast a part time job. But I'm sure a well funded source can make a video that looks like a small time content creator but pushes their view or their product.