3 ms·

Good point. But it begs the next question: where exactly is the line between the two?

gedy 6y ago
The answer seems to be from nearly everyone: "It's obvious, whatever my side agrees is acceptable of course." (Which does not help of course.)
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
When you use someone else's capital. The issue was that Coughlin was using other broadcasters infra to disseminate his message. If he had his own tower then it wouldn't have been a problem.
52-6F-62 6y ago
I'd argue the abstractions, at best, are getting in the way; at worst they're being intentionally manipulated to suit. Infrastructural requirements are cooperative requirements at their core—they're not detachable from the people that use, operate, and maintain them. Infrastructure that delivers such a mass of information isn't automatic, it's a concerted effort of many people. If the people you are relying on to amplify your message do not want to cooperate with you, should they be forced to? How it appears to me is that we've reached a point, a rare point, in which the majority of the people involved in those works have decided against cooperating with delivering the messaging of some people because they don't want to be a party to it. Not out of fear of reprisal, but out of disagreement with the stated goals of it.
- engineer_22 6y ago
  This is an interesting point, and you're an excellent writer. So the obvious question: is it acceptable for the group of people you described (large corporations) to read your messages and insert themselves in private conversation?
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    Good question—and if you’re looking for a line in the sand you may have found one. I wouldn’t say they should insert themselves in the process and read the messages mid-com, but there’s nothing hiding this messaging on the back end. In fact, isn’t this all a result of it being highly publicized? It’s that public broadcast people are reacting to, and nixing. They haven’t been booted off any private messaging systems (where they’ve only practiced private coms), have they? Edit: by back-end I mean the end product of their efforts not serverside

gedy 6y ago

The answer seems to be from nearly everyone: "It's obvious, whatever my side agrees is acceptable of course." (Which does not help of course.)

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago

When you use someone else's capital. The issue was that Coughlin was using other broadcasters infra to disseminate his message. If he had his own tower then it wouldn't have been a problem.

52-6F-62 6y ago

I'd argue the abstractions, at best, are getting in the way; at worst they're being intentionally manipulated to suit. Infrastructural requirements are cooperative requirements at their core—they're not detachable from the people that use, operate, and maintain them. Infrastructure that delivers such a mass of information isn't automatic, it's a concerted effort of many people. If the people you are relying on to amplify your message do not want to cooperate with you, should they be forced to? How it appears to me is that we've reached a point, a rare point, in which the majority of the people involved in those works have decided against cooperating with delivering the messaging of some people because they don't want to be a party to it. Not out of fear of reprisal, but out of disagreement with the stated goals of it.

engineer_22 6y ago
This is an interesting point, and you're an excellent writer. So the obvious question: is it acceptable for the group of people you described (large corporations) to read your messages and insert themselves in private conversation?
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  Good question—and if you’re looking for a line in the sand you may have found one. I wouldn’t say they should insert themselves in the process and read the messages mid-com, but there’s nothing hiding this messaging on the back end. In fact, isn’t this all a result of it being highly publicized? It’s that public broadcast people are reacting to, and nixing. They haven’t been booted off any private messaging systems (where they’ve only practiced private coms), have they? Edit: by back-end I mean the end product of their efforts not serverside