4 ms·

Some time up until people started getting the internet on their phones, roughly. Of course, no definition is perfect.

paxys 5y ago
Before people had internet it was ~5 media companies that decided what could be said in public and who could say it. It was hardly as "free" as people imagine.
- danlugo92 5y ago
  He did not say "before internet".
- corndoge 5y ago
  And when they had internet but before they had it on their phones, you could work around those media companies by saying things online. I believe parent was referring to that period.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    And very few people, relatively, were online so you could reach only a small number of people. You can probably still reach just as many people online in unmoderated channels as you could back then.
- leephillips 5y ago
  This was never true. Anyone could stand on the street corner and say anything. Anyone with some spare cash could print up political booklets or flyers and hand them out, and many did.
  - paxys 5y ago
    And you can't do that today?
    - leephillips 5y ago
      You lost me.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      You can't. Lockdowns.
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        To be clear, because sports aren't open in most places and a video game streaming website changed their terms of service, there is no longer free speech? Can you help make sense of your comment, because it seems to be closer to a cult chant than a connected chain of thoughts.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    That's a coherent issue if you think that free speech is a purely negative right, which is the traditional liberal position. However, if you admit this, then you must also admit that Twitch is fully within their rights. Personally, I believe that the positive right to free speech (subject to exceptions, of course) is much more important, and not up to FAANG to decide.
marcinzm 5y ago
Before then we had control of most media by a small set of companies (with many fun documented examples of people being blacklisted for going against the owners). Before that we had the Television Code, Comic Code, and so on. Before that we had McCarthyism. Public and media speech was always moderated. In the past it was simply harder to notice since there were fewer un-moderated channels.
- goatcode 5y ago
  The FCC is an unelected, mostly unaccountable entity. I think George Carlin had some things to say about them. That they have any control over transmission of anything outside of a technical, practical scope is a travesty, imo. Beyond the hardened strawmen of actual written law, we have a shifting sense of what is publicly acceptable. Given that most people do what everyone else around them is doing, or at least what they believe others are doing, there exists a powerful tool in that to control the public discourse. We've gone from "I disagree with what you say, but I will die to protect your ability to say it," to "I think someone will find this offensive, so I will also find this offensive, despite my not knowing anyone who'd actually be offended by it." The laws are a harder target, so those who would wish to stifle inconvenient discourse likely would find it easier to convince a mostly pliable, trusting public to not say the things they don't want said. That there still are a small number of companies controlling what a majority of people consume might be convenient to this. All conjecture, of course. More of the Paul Harvey "If I Were The Devil" kind of thing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Before people had internet it was ~5 media companies that decided what could be said in public and who could say it. It was hardly as "free" as people imagine.

danlugo92 5y ago
He did not say "before internet".
corndoge 5y ago
And when they had internet but before they had it on their phones, you could work around those media companies by saying things online. I believe parent was referring to that period.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  And very few people, relatively, were online so you could reach only a small number of people. You can probably still reach just as many people online in unmoderated channels as you could back then.
leephillips 5y ago
This was never true. Anyone could stand on the street corner and say anything. Anyone with some spare cash could print up political booklets or flyers and hand them out, and many did.
- paxys 5y ago
  And you can't do that today?
  - leephillips 5y ago
    You lost me.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    You can't. Lockdowns.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      To be clear, because sports aren't open in most places and a video game streaming website changed their terms of service, there is no longer free speech? Can you help make sense of your comment, because it seems to be closer to a cult chant than a connected chain of thoughts.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  That's a coherent issue if you think that free speech is a purely negative right, which is the traditional liberal position. However, if you admit this, then you must also admit that Twitch is fully within their rights. Personally, I believe that the positive right to free speech (subject to exceptions, of course) is much more important, and not up to FAANG to decide.

marcinzm 5y ago

Before then we had control of most media by a small set of companies (with many fun documented examples of people being blacklisted for going against the owners). Before that we had the Television Code, Comic Code, and so on. Before that we had McCarthyism. Public and media speech was always moderated. In the past it was simply harder to notice since there were fewer un-moderated channels.

goatcode 5y ago
The FCC is an unelected, mostly unaccountable entity. I think George Carlin had some things to say about them. That they have any control over transmission of anything outside of a technical, practical scope is a travesty, imo. Beyond the hardened strawmen of actual written law, we have a shifting sense of what is publicly acceptable. Given that most people do what everyone else around them is doing, or at least what they believe others are doing, there exists a powerful tool in that to control the public discourse. We've gone from "I disagree with what you say, but I will die to protect your ability to say it," to "I think someone will find this offensive, so I will also find this offensive, despite my not knowing anyone who'd actually be offended by it." The laws are a harder target, so those who would wish to stifle inconvenient discourse likely would find it easier to convince a mostly pliable, trusting public to not say the things they don't want said. That there still are a small number of companies controlling what a majority of people consume might be convenient to this. All conjecture, of course. More of the Paul Harvey "If I Were The Devil" kind of thing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]