5 ms·

This feels different from censorship on Twitter and Facebook to me. I guess the business model of Mailchimp is more transparent and I can appreciate that a comp

This feels different from censorship on Twitter and Facebook to me. I guess the business model of Mailchimp is more transparent and I can appreciate that a company may choose who to do business with.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
Emotionally I feel like I'm fully on mailchimp's side here, but I don't think I understand the difference you're seeing in Twitter/Facebook's censorship, vs. this - unless there's specific instances I'm not remembering?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bryanlarsen 6y ago
Twitter and Facebook are in monopolistic positions. Mailchimp isn't. There are many things that normal companies are allowed to do but monopolies aren't. Twitter/Facebook may or may not be legal monopolies and this type of behaviour may or may not be one of those protected activities, but both pieces can be made from a moral position if not a legal one. The monopolistic aspect is why this feels more acceptable for Mailchimp than for Twitter/Facebook.
- swader999 6y ago
  I volunteer for a youth sports club and we use mail chimp. I'll be donating some of my time to switch to an alternative this weekend.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
But why should they? What good is served by allowing mailchimp to even just make it slightly harder for people they disagree with to express themselves?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What good is served by forcing mailchimp to serve customers who would adversely affect the reputation of mailchimp?
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    The good served by forcing mailchimp to serve all customers (except spammers) is precisely that then serving those customers would not adversely affect their reputation, anymore than it affects AT&T's reputation that their service is used by horrible people.
  - MinusGix 6y ago
    If there was a common cultural idea generated of "blame the person, not the place that serves the content" then that would solve that issue. Personally, I see that we're currently heading away from that, and while we've never had it fully it still appears to be going towards the "blame the service provider" route.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      ESPs live and die by their delivery stats. Get enough people clicking “this is spam” (whether or not technically spam) and mailchimp is harmed. The question of “will google deliver my mail to a gmail inbox?” is the key one, not whether someone, given enough time to study the matter carefully, can intellectually determine that mailchimp acted ok.
mistermann 6y ago
Two differences I see: > At least Mailchimp, a US email and marketing automation service – doesn’t even try to pretend there is some objective, consensus-based way in determining what’s false and what’s true. Instead, they’re saying what many others in the tech industry are thinking and doing: “misinformation” is simply what we decide it is, because we can. Mailchimp is outright acknowledging that epistemically-sound, conclusive Truth is not a deciding factor, whereas Twitter, Facebook, etc (and much media reporting) hint/imply that conclusive Truth is a deciding factor. Secondly, if one is deplatformed from Mailchimp, one can move to another provider with little loss, particularly as it comes to the most important aspect: attention. The commonly repeated meme that deplatforming or filtering are not(!) in any way free speech issues "because you can "just" move to a new platform (or build your own)" completely overlooks this aspect of the debate. https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-censorship/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-n... >> Here's how this golden age of speech actually works: In the 21st century, the capacity to spread ideas and reach an audience is no longer limited by access to expensive, centralized broadcasting infrastructure. It’s limited instead by one’s ability to garner and distribute attention. And right now, the flow of the world’s attention is structured, to a vast and overwhelming degree, by just a few digital platforms: Facebook, Google (which owns YouTube), and, to a lesser extent, Twitter. >> These tactics usually don’t break any laws or set off any First Amendment alarm bells. But they all serve the same purpose that the old forms of censorship did: They are the best available tools to stop ideas from spreading and gaining purchase. >> Even when the big platforms themselves suspend or boot someone off their networks for violating “community standards”—an act that does look to many people like old-fashioned censorship—it’s not technically an infringement on free speech [1], even if it is a display of immense platform power. Anyone in the world can still read what the far-right troll Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet has to say on the internet. What Twitter has denied him, by kicking him off, is attention. [1] Here the author actually falls victim to conflating free speech (the general principle) with The First Amendment, but makes up for it well enough. Another good article (with a John Stuart Mill basis): https://felipec.substack.com/p/the-fatal-freedom-of-speech-fallacy https://felipec.substack.com/p/the-fatal-freedom-of-speech-f... >> In 2020 the concept of cancel culture is rampant. The common argument is that the right to freedom speech doesn’t imply that people must listen to you, or that you cannot get canceled, or that you should be free from the consequences of your speech. >> This is correct. But did you spot the fallacy? The [right] to freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom of speech [argument]. That is an equivocation fallacy. EDIT: It seems these ideas are unpopular - I would appreciate hearing any opposing ideas so that I can improve my stance.
Nasrudith 6y ago
It "feels" different - perhaps a hint that the whole notion of Monopoly in Big Tech is essentially a "big lie" repeated so incessantly that others start repeating it thoughtlessly because it "feels right"? A single standard has all three equally right with private property administration.
- MinusGix 6y ago
  I think you're avoiding the alternative option, that there can be different levels of regulation based on size and power of a company. There's a rather large difference between Twitter, which has a lot of people using it every day for information, and that of smaller companies. A company like Twitter can influence the fabric of society for good and bad by a large amount, but a smaller company has far less effect. A single standard is a simple approach, but that doesn't make it the best option.
godshatter 6y ago
I feel the same way about mailchimp doing this that I do about Facebook or Twitter doing this: I agree that they have the right to do this as a private company, but the fact that they are doing it so casually discourages me.

This feels different from censorship on Twitter and Facebook to me. I guess the business model of Mailchimp is more transparent and I can appreciate that a company may choose who to do business with.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

Emotionally I feel like I'm fully on mailchimp's side here, but I don't think I understand the difference you're seeing in Twitter/Facebook's censorship, vs. this - unless there's specific instances I'm not remembering?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Twitter and Facebook are in monopolistic positions. Mailchimp isn't. There are many things that normal companies are allowed to do but monopolies aren't. Twitter/Facebook may or may not be legal monopolies and this type of behaviour may or may not be one of those protected activities, but both pieces can be made from a moral position if not a legal one. The monopolistic aspect is why this feels more acceptable for Mailchimp than for Twitter/Facebook.

swader999 6y ago
I volunteer for a youth sports club and we use mail chimp. I'll be donating some of my time to switch to an alternative this weekend.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

But why should they? What good is served by allowing mailchimp to even just make it slightly harder for people they disagree with to express themselves?

sokoloff 6y ago
What good is served by forcing mailchimp to serve customers who would adversely affect the reputation of mailchimp?
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  The good served by forcing mailchimp to serve all customers (except spammers) is precisely that then serving those customers would not adversely affect their reputation, anymore than it affects AT&T's reputation that their service is used by horrible people.
- MinusGix 6y ago
  If there was a common cultural idea generated of "blame the person, not the place that serves the content" then that would solve that issue. Personally, I see that we're currently heading away from that, and while we've never had it fully it still appears to be going towards the "blame the service provider" route.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    ESPs live and die by their delivery stats. Get enough people clicking “this is spam” (whether or not technically spam) and mailchimp is harmed. The question of “will google deliver my mail to a gmail inbox?” is the key one, not whether someone, given enough time to study the matter carefully, can intellectually determine that mailchimp acted ok.

mistermann 6y ago

Two differences I see: > At least Mailchimp, a US email and marketing automation service – doesn’t even try to pretend there is some objective, consensus-based way in determining what’s false and what’s true. Instead, they’re saying what many others in the tech industry are thinking and doing: “misinformation” is simply what we decide it is, because we can. Mailchimp is outright acknowledging that epistemically-sound, conclusive Truth is not a deciding factor, whereas Twitter, Facebook, etc (and much media reporting) hint/imply that conclusive Truth is a deciding factor. Secondly, if one is deplatformed from Mailchimp, one can move to another provider with little loss, particularly as it comes to the most important aspect: attention. The commonly repeated meme that deplatforming or filtering are not(!) in any way free speech issues "because you can "just" move to a new platform (or build your own)" completely overlooks this aspect of the debate. https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-censorship/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-n... >> Here's how this golden age of speech actually works: In the 21st century, the capacity to spread ideas and reach an audience is no longer limited by access to expensive, centralized broadcasting infrastructure. It’s limited instead by one’s ability to garner and distribute attention. And right now, the flow of the world’s attention is structured, to a vast and overwhelming degree, by just a few digital platforms: Facebook, Google (which owns YouTube), and, to a lesser extent, Twitter. >> These tactics usually don’t break any laws or set off any First Amendment alarm bells. But they all serve the same purpose that the old forms of censorship did: They are the best available tools to stop ideas from spreading and gaining purchase. >> Even when the big platforms themselves suspend or boot someone off their networks for violating “community standards”—an act that does look to many people like old-fashioned censorship—it’s not technically an infringement on free speech [1], even if it is a display of immense platform power. Anyone in the world can still read what the far-right troll Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet has to say on the internet. What Twitter has denied him, by kicking him off, is attention. [1] Here the author actually falls victim to conflating free speech (the general principle) with The First Amendment, but makes up for it well enough. Another good article (with a John Stuart Mill basis): https://felipec.substack.com/p/the-fatal-freedom-of-speech-fallacy https://felipec.substack.com/p/the-fatal-freedom-of-speech-f... >> In 2020 the concept of cancel culture is rampant. The common argument is that the right to freedom speech doesn’t imply that people must listen to you, or that you cannot get canceled, or that you should be free from the consequences of your speech. >> This is correct. But did you spot the fallacy? The [right] to freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom of speech [argument]. That is an equivocation fallacy. EDIT: It seems these ideas are unpopular - I would appreciate hearing any opposing ideas so that I can improve my stance.

Nasrudith 6y ago

It "feels" different - perhaps a hint that the whole notion of Monopoly in Big Tech is essentially a "big lie" repeated so incessantly that others start repeating it thoughtlessly because it "feels right"? A single standard has all three equally right with private property administration.

MinusGix 6y ago
I think you're avoiding the alternative option, that there can be different levels of regulation based on size and power of a company. There's a rather large difference between Twitter, which has a lot of people using it every day for information, and that of smaller companies. A company like Twitter can influence the fabric of society for good and bad by a large amount, but a smaller company has far less effect. A single standard is a simple approach, but that doesn't make it the best option.

godshatter 6y ago

I feel the same way about mailchimp doing this that I do about Facebook or Twitter doing this: I agree that they have the right to do this as a private company, but the fact that they are doing it so casually discourages me.