4 ms·

That interpretation of prohibition looks past the very reasons why it was advocated for and ultimately instituted. You mention yourself that drinking caused re

That interpretation of prohibition looks past the very reasons why it was advocated for and ultimately instituted. You mention yourself that drinking caused real harmful societal issues, and it was these issues which prohibitionists sought to confront The overall lesson, is that it's far better to convince than to coerce. Coercion often causes a backlash, especially when it runs counter to market forces. On the other hand, when one convinces, backlash is greatly reduced, and the change sticks. The Left is just as willing and eager to legislate its own morality in pursuit of creating a world that is more consistent with its own moral vision. Not just legislation. Basically anyone who controls a "platform" is willing to use that power to push their own political agenda. (Not just owners, but their technicians and hired help.) Back when such platforms were newspapers, markets could control the worst abuses. Now, platforms have much more interaction and much greater reach. If computer networks are as deep and far-reaching a change to culture as the printing press was, then it should be expected that the conception of human rights should have to change to accommodate such change. In 2020, we need our own version of "freedom of the press" which applies to platforms.

corporate_shi11 7y ago
Completely agree that we need to update how we think about freedom in regards to big platforms. In the age of newspapers there were thousands across the country and major markets were often served by many popular newspapers, giving a home in print to many different political views. The market forstered (political) diversity in ownership. Contrast this with today, where major social networks and tech companies have absolute control over what we see and interact with, and because network effects are more powerful in social media than print media, there are just a few social networks which reduces competition and the possibility for diversity of ownership in the industry. The existence of a small set of corporate overlords who in secrecy can powerfully influence how people think, behave and react is very scary for those of us who value a free and open society. The behavior of social networks and platforms therefore must be regulated to ensure the immense power that comes with operating a social network at scale is not abused for private ends. Their power is too great to avoid a political solution.

corporate_shi11 7y ago

Completely agree that we need to update how we think about freedom in regards to big platforms. In the age of newspapers there were thousands across the country and major markets were often served by many popular newspapers, giving a home in print to many different political views. The market forstered (political) diversity in ownership. Contrast this with today, where major social networks and tech companies have absolute control over what we see and interact with, and because network effects are more powerful in social media than print media, there are just a few social networks which reduces competition and the possibility for diversity of ownership in the industry. The existence of a small set of corporate overlords who in secrecy can powerfully influence how people think, behave and react is very scary for those of us who value a free and open society. The behavior of social networks and platforms therefore must be regulated to ensure the immense power that comes with operating a social network at scale is not abused for private ends. Their power is too great to avoid a political solution.