3 ms·

> which means that you're advocating for the status quo I’m actually not advocating for anything. I'm using this conversation to understand what you're advocat

by bhupy 6y ago

> which means that you're advocating for the status quo I’m actually not advocating for anything. I'm using this conversation to understand what you're advocating for so that I can form my own opinion about what I should believe. Looking back at this conversation, you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press, it's just that you find the implications of that to be undesirable; and you've made your best case for why that is. My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal by admitting on the public record that you don't think that we ought to have a "free press". That helps me not only understand the implications of your proposal but also establish that you actually do believe in what you're advocating for despite the implications (the honesty is refreshing). It also allows me to understand what it really means to deviate from the status quo. In that regard, this was an illuminating exchange. To the extent that I'm advocating for anything, it's that if you want to make any fundamental changes to the nature of press freedom in the US, the best way to do that is via the Constitutional Amendment process, and not by Legislative bullying. Even if one were to agree with the ends for which you are advocating (not saying that I do), I definitely disagree with the current means of achieving them.

mindslight 6y ago
> you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press No, the status quo is to assert that we have a free press, as a tenet of our national beliefs. But looking at the actual governance of the US, much of the power structure resides outside of the de jure government. And that de facto government owns or supports most of the press. > My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal I've proposed nothing. I'm disputing assertions that backstop the status quo, chiefly that corporations should be viewed as plain groups of regular individuals coming together by voluntary association. Regarding speech, a straightforward proposal one could create from this is that corporations' speech would be regulated as a condition of their government-approved incorporation (and groups of individuals would be free to avoid this by not incorporating). But I'm not proposing this, because I think the motivation behind this problem-narrative is mostly power coalescing, and an inevitable reaction to the fracturing of institutional authority. Rather I'm making the general argument to point out that the interests of individuals are distinct from this battle of corporate versus government power - both "sides" are steamrollers to individually held rights. My own favored proposal is to move to Free p2p comms and leave both arms of the incumbent structure in the dust.

by bhupy 6y ago

mindslight 6y ago

> you said "I agree that we don't actually have a free press". It's clear from this conversation that you understand that in the status quo, we actually do have a free press No, the status quo is to assert that we have a free press, as a tenet of our national beliefs. But looking at the actual governance of the US, much of the power structure resides outside of the de jure government. And that de facto government owns or supports most of the press. > My goal is to get you to be up front about the ramifications of your own proposal I've proposed nothing. I'm disputing assertions that backstop the status quo, chiefly that corporations should be viewed as plain groups of regular individuals coming together by voluntary association. Regarding speech, a straightforward proposal one could create from this is that corporations' speech would be regulated as a condition of their government-approved incorporation (and groups of individuals would be free to avoid this by not incorporating). But I'm not proposing this, because I think the motivation behind this problem-narrative is mostly power coalescing, and an inevitable reaction to the fracturing of institutional authority. Rather I'm making the general argument to point out that the interests of individuals are distinct from this battle of corporate versus government power - both "sides" are steamrollers to individually held rights. My own favored proposal is to move to Free p2p comms and leave both arms of the incumbent structure in the dust.