3 ms·

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.

john_moscow 6y ago
Well, it gets interesting if you actually look into it. Somewhat simplifying it, but there are 4 types of actors: 1. Content creators. People that share viewpoints. They are motivated by influencing others who read their pieces. 2. Content consumers. People that read what is published by creators. You can split these in 2 groups: 2a. Non-activist consumers. They don't have much free time and generally just skip over something they don't like. They are the majority. 2b. Activist consumers. They have lots of free time and want their share of influence. By influencing what content creators can write they feel an influence over what non-activist consumers can consume. 3. Providers. They provide platforms connecting content creators and consumers. They generally just care about making money and rely on partnerships with other providers (banks, payment processors, hosting companies, domain registries, etc). They would gladly cut off business that brings negative PR to them. So what is happening recently is a very small vocal minority of activist consumers is getting increased control over what content creators (1) can share to regular consumers (2a). They do it by forcing big providers (banks, cloud providers, etc) to cut ties with smaller providers that are not aligned with the activist consumers' viewpoints. Hence, many other providers are forced to self-censor in fear of losing access to banking and other vital services. It's a rather weird negative selection process powered by the social media. Instead of encouraging the unhappy unproductive people to learn from their more successful peers and knock off what worked for them, we are giving them increasing control over the media space, so they can make their views (that lead to unhappiness) more mainstream, resulting in more unhappiness and more social tension.
ttt0 6y ago
You said it like it's an unthinkable thing to do, but it used to be a policy - FCC fairness doctrine.
- schoen 6y ago
  Though the FCC's justification for the Fairness Doctrine was akin to part of their justification for prohibiting profanity in broadcasts: the huge scarcity of broadcast spectrum and the relatively small number of channels that could exist in a particular media market. They never attempted to apply the Fairness Doctrine to media other than licensed broadcast stations, and, when they repealed it, they noted that broadcasters would then have the same editorial freedom as print publishers -- who are allowed to be biased and treat others' viewpoints unfairly.
rayiner 6y ago
“Anyone” is doing a lot of work in your sentence. Universities are given a huge amount of special dispensation by society because they of their commitment to free inquiry. A literary magazine at a university should embody those principles. If it doesn’t, then why give them a privileged place in society? Back in the day conservatives alleged that “free inquiry” was a pretext and universities were a Trojan horse for radical leftism. This strain of thought vindicates those critics.
- yew 6y ago
  I wouldn't call expunging racism from society "radical" or incompatible with any inquiry worth making free. If conservatives need to "allege" about that, what more do you need to hear?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    No, but it is radical to do that while redefining “racism” to encompass literally every aspect of existing society radicals don’t like: capitalism, the U.S. Constitution, individualism, being white (“whiteness”), etc.

Not really. You are basically arguing that anyone who provides a platform for viewpoints, must provide a platform for any viewpoint, no matter how abhorent they (and their readers) might find it.

john_moscow 6y ago

Well, it gets interesting if you actually look into it. Somewhat simplifying it, but there are 4 types of actors: 1. Content creators. People that share viewpoints. They are motivated by influencing others who read their pieces. 2. Content consumers. People that read what is published by creators. You can split these in 2 groups: 2a. Non-activist consumers. They don't have much free time and generally just skip over something they don't like. They are the majority. 2b. Activist consumers. They have lots of free time and want their share of influence. By influencing what content creators can write they feel an influence over what non-activist consumers can consume. 3. Providers. They provide platforms connecting content creators and consumers. They generally just care about making money and rely on partnerships with other providers (banks, payment processors, hosting companies, domain registries, etc). They would gladly cut off business that brings negative PR to them. So what is happening recently is a very small vocal minority of activist consumers is getting increased control over what content creators (1) can share to regular consumers (2a). They do it by forcing big providers (banks, cloud providers, etc) to cut ties with smaller providers that are not aligned with the activist consumers' viewpoints. Hence, many other providers are forced to self-censor in fear of losing access to banking and other vital services. It's a rather weird negative selection process powered by the social media. Instead of encouraging the unhappy unproductive people to learn from their more successful peers and knock off what worked for them, we are giving them increasing control over the media space, so they can make their views (that lead to unhappiness) more mainstream, resulting in more unhappiness and more social tension.

ttt0 6y ago

You said it like it's an unthinkable thing to do, but it used to be a policy - FCC fairness doctrine.

schoen 6y ago
Though the FCC's justification for the Fairness Doctrine was akin to part of their justification for prohibiting profanity in broadcasts: the huge scarcity of broadcast spectrum and the relatively small number of channels that could exist in a particular media market. They never attempted to apply the Fairness Doctrine to media other than licensed broadcast stations, and, when they repealed it, they noted that broadcasters would then have the same editorial freedom as print publishers -- who are allowed to be biased and treat others' viewpoints unfairly.

rayiner 6y ago

“Anyone” is doing a lot of work in your sentence. Universities are given a huge amount of special dispensation by society because they of their commitment to free inquiry. A literary magazine at a university should embody those principles. If it doesn’t, then why give them a privileged place in society? Back in the day conservatives alleged that “free inquiry” was a pretext and universities were a Trojan horse for radical leftism. This strain of thought vindicates those critics.

yew 6y ago
I wouldn't call expunging racism from society "radical" or incompatible with any inquiry worth making free. If conservatives need to "allege" about that, what more do you need to hear?
- rayiner 6y ago
  No, but it is radical to do that while redefining “racism” to encompass literally every aspect of existing society radicals don’t like: capitalism, the U.S. Constitution, individualism, being white (“whiteness”), etc.