3 ms·

> You don't have to write on FB. You don't have to write on Twitter (and please don't try to actually write on Twitter). Good luck building an audience from sc

> You don't have to write on FB. You don't have to write on Twitter (and please don't try to actually write on Twitter). Good luck building an audience from scratch without having a strong social media presence. Additionally, your blog can absolutely be "taken down" or canceled, even if through self preservation. Just look at SSC.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
I don't know what "SSC" is and a simple google search doesn't provide much, if any context. Most hosting services have very permissive policies (they have to, they could not possibly preemptively police stuff running in VMs). If you need something more permissive, find an even more permissive hosting service (probably outside the US). I'm not saying that you do anything with a blog and be guaranteed that it stayed available, but you'd have to do way, way, way more than anything a platform like FB/Twitter would take action on.
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  SSC is Slate Star Codex, a blog formerly maintained by psychiatrist Scott Alexander. He took it down in advance of the New York Times publishing an article about it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Thanks for that. Yes I remember reading about this at the time. It seems to me that suggesting that this "takedown" has anything remotely to do with what is being discussed here is disingenous.
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      > It seems to me that suggesting that this "takedown" has anything remotely to do with what is being discussed here is disingenous. What "seems to you" is entirely wrong, but I'm curious as to how you would rationalize dismissing that as "disingenuous"[1] without even attempting to explain how. It seems like you couldn't find a way to actually reject its obvious relevancy, so you chose just not to do it by using a word that seemed like it should be enough to shut down discussion, and leave it at that. [1]: I'm not entirely sure how the other person was "pretending to know less" by bringing up how SSC had to be taken down because in today's climate, what what was almost done to the author would have threatened his livelihood. It's a quite apt counterpoint to your notion that owning your own domain is some sort of magical protection against censorship.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

I don't know what "SSC" is and a simple google search doesn't provide much, if any context. Most hosting services have very permissive policies (they have to, they could not possibly preemptively police stuff running in VMs). If you need something more permissive, find an even more permissive hosting service (probably outside the US). I'm not saying that you do anything with a blog and be guaranteed that it stayed available, but you'd have to do way, way, way more than anything a platform like FB/Twitter would take action on.

tomjakubowski 6y ago
SSC is Slate Star Codex, a blog formerly maintained by psychiatrist Scott Alexander. He took it down in advance of the New York Times publishing an article about it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Thanks for that. Yes I remember reading about this at the time. It seems to me that suggesting that this "takedown" has anything remotely to do with what is being discussed here is disingenous.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > It seems to me that suggesting that this "takedown" has anything remotely to do with what is being discussed here is disingenous. What "seems to you" is entirely wrong, but I'm curious as to how you would rationalize dismissing that as "disingenuous"[1] without even attempting to explain how. It seems like you couldn't find a way to actually reject its obvious relevancy, so you chose just not to do it by using a word that seemed like it should be enough to shut down discussion, and leave it at that. [1]: I'm not entirely sure how the other person was "pretending to know less" by bringing up how SSC had to be taken down because in today's climate, what what was almost done to the author would have threatened his livelihood. It's a quite apt counterpoint to your notion that owning your own domain is some sort of magical protection against censorship.