3 ms·

> Is the author seriously arguing that it was easier to distribute information in the late 1700s and early 1800s than it is now if you're off of the internet

by DenisM 6y ago

> Is the author seriously arguing that it was easier to distribute information in the late 1700s and early 1800s than it is now if you're off of the internet No. He is arguing that 200 years ago distribution was about equally hard for everyone, but today it's very easy for those approved by the IT moguls, and still hard for everyone else. > Is he also arguing that FB/Twitter/Apple/Google/Amazon have a monopoly on the ability to communicate on the internet Google and Apple have absolute 100% lock on app distribution. FB & Twitter together have pretty much 100% lock on "like and share" media, which accounts for, say, 90% of all news discovery. Of course you can still stand on the corner and hand out printed pamphlets, but there is significant difference in reach that is affected by having favors with the IT moguls and not by the appeal of the message itself. I wonder whether you really didn't understand this or simply expressed your disagreement as a question?

eightysixfour 6y ago
> I wonder whether you really didn't understand this or simply expressed your disagreement as a question? No, it was an honest question, because I'm having this conversation with you without any of those services impacting me. My opinion as a whole is simple, the internet is an additional medium of information sharing. We have more means of communicating our ideas (even without the internet) for cheaper than we have in the entire history of humanity. Never in history have the mediums of communication of the day been required to communicate what you ask them to. Sure, you could print a pamphlet, but I guarantee you'd rather have it in the Boston Gazette.
- DenisM 6y ago
  I feel like you're ignoring the competition aspect of it. If one party finds it 100 times easier to spread their message than the other the latter would not be heard even if their message is twice as appealing. If both parties found it hard to spread their message the ideas would be competing on their merits, but the higher the cost discrepancy the less impact the merit has on the outcome.
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    I think I understand the competition aspect - I still think freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you equal competition or equal opportunity to reach an audience. You have to convince the broadcasters to carry your message and always have, the only difference now is the broadcasters have to opt-out of your message instead of opt-in.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      Thanks for replying. Your perspective looks entirely alien to me, but I respect it and appreciate the opportunity to understand. If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right?
      - eightysixfour 6y ago
        > If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right? I mean this just happened. Many of the airlines wouldn't allow those involved in the attack on the Capitol on their flights back to wherever they came from. And no, I don't have a problem with this. Either the other airlines will fly those people or no one will and they will have to travel via alternative means. I would have a problem if the government told airlines that passengers, as a result of only their political group, were not allowed to fly. I would also say that I am more hesitant to agree in the case of this analogy about being "deplatformed" by all of the airlines than I am by social media or hosting providers (cloud or not) since airlines are a heavily regulated industry with a very deep, government-backed moat. > they are no worse off I'd like to clarify that I don't think they're no worse off, but I also don't believe we have a fundamental right to be served by a company unless they are a utility that has a government backed monopoly or quasi-monopoly (or you are not being served as a result of your membership in a protected class). That's why I feel confident in being pro-net neutrality for ISPs, anti-forced hosting for hosting providers, and lean towards treating DNS like an ISP. I'm also pro-federated services for these reasons, because I believe platforms should have control over their platforms, and I believe we the people should have more diverse platforms and more control over the ones we use. A lot of my beliefs about this probably stem from being a moderator on a decently large online community about 15 years ago as well as working in the hosting industry for a short stint.
panarky 6y ago
We have freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.

by DenisM 6y ago

eightysixfour 6y ago

> I wonder whether you really didn't understand this or simply expressed your disagreement as a question? No, it was an honest question, because I'm having this conversation with you without any of those services impacting me. My opinion as a whole is simple, the internet is an additional medium of information sharing. We have more means of communicating our ideas (even without the internet) for cheaper than we have in the entire history of humanity. Never in history have the mediums of communication of the day been required to communicate what you ask them to. Sure, you could print a pamphlet, but I guarantee you'd rather have it in the Boston Gazette.

DenisM 6y ago
I feel like you're ignoring the competition aspect of it. If one party finds it 100 times easier to spread their message than the other the latter would not be heard even if their message is twice as appealing. If both parties found it hard to spread their message the ideas would be competing on their merits, but the higher the cost discrepancy the less impact the merit has on the outcome.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  I think I understand the competition aspect - I still think freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you equal competition or equal opportunity to reach an audience. You have to convince the broadcasters to carry your message and always have, the only difference now is the broadcasters have to opt-out of your message instead of opt-in.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Thanks for replying. Your perspective looks entirely alien to me, but I respect it and appreciate the opportunity to understand. If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right?
    - eightysixfour 6y ago
      > If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right? I mean this just happened. Many of the airlines wouldn't allow those involved in the attack on the Capitol on their flights back to wherever they came from. And no, I don't have a problem with this. Either the other airlines will fly those people or no one will and they will have to travel via alternative means. I would have a problem if the government told airlines that passengers, as a result of only their political group, were not allowed to fly. I would also say that I am more hesitant to agree in the case of this analogy about being "deplatformed" by all of the airlines than I am by social media or hosting providers (cloud or not) since airlines are a heavily regulated industry with a very deep, government-backed moat. > they are no worse off I'd like to clarify that I don't think they're no worse off, but I also don't believe we have a fundamental right to be served by a company unless they are a utility that has a government backed monopoly or quasi-monopoly (or you are not being served as a result of your membership in a protected class). That's why I feel confident in being pro-net neutrality for ISPs, anti-forced hosting for hosting providers, and lean towards treating DNS like an ISP. I'm also pro-federated services for these reasons, because I believe platforms should have control over their platforms, and I believe we the people should have more diverse platforms and more control over the ones we use. A lot of my beliefs about this probably stem from being a moderator on a decently large online community about 15 years ago as well as working in the hosting industry for a short stint.

panarky 6y ago

We have freedom of speech, not freedom of reach.