3 ms·

It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). U

It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. The only change is in the kind of scoundrels preferred. Social media (i.e Facebook et al), on both the corporate and consumer sides, is a testament to that. And I certainly think it's worth discussing what constitues a scoundrel. After all Scott Alexander himself has infamously been regarded as one by mainstream institutions like the New York Times. For him to be quoted as an expert on the subject is painfully ironic.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
>It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. I don't think "contrarians" in the early internet are the "scoundrels" that alexander scott was talking about. Specifically, it's possible to be a contrarian but not be that type of contrarian that you get on voat. Also, how free speech are those venues in the early internet? Were they literally "as long as it's legal we'll let you post it"? Could you get away with spamming racist posts, or would you get shunned/blocked by the community? >Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. It's not free of scoundrels, but they're diluted and moderated to the point that you don't notice them.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  >> Also, how free speech are those venues in the early internet? Were they literally "as long as it's legal we'll let you post it"? Yes. On Usenet you could and still can post anything you want. Even if is/was illegal. Warez, drugs, and other less-then-savory stuff have had whole boards devoted to them. >>Could you get away with spamming racist posts, or would you get shunned/blocked by the community? Once again yes. On Usenet, you could get kicked from a particular discussion depending whether an admin thought one was racist, not racist enough, or for any reason at all. However, there was nothing stopping one from making a different account and continuing to use the same board. After all, there wasn't a real name or email requirement a la Facebook back then or even today. Think 4chan or early Reddit but with more academics. That's what Usenet was and, to a more limited extent, so were BBSs. >>It's not free of scoundrels, but they're diluted and moderated to the point that you don't notice them. The dilution you speak of is a passive one and never permanent. It just happens to exist because most people are ignorant and uninterested enough to not give to certain types of scoundrels for the time being much serious attention. Their ignorance serves as a buffer against the spread of ideas. But up to a point. That same ignorance breeds naiveté towards seriously considering certain critical issues and leaves them susceptible to manipulation when faced with an issue one "feels" is important, but lacks an internalized explanation for. At a some critical juncture - a word said, a topic raised - the once blissful, sleeping giant of collective ignorance thrusts itself into the tumult armed with nothing by shoddy memes and crackpot ideas peddled by the scoundrels of their choosing. Except those scoundrels don't call themselves "scoundrels". These mainstream-appealing types call themselves "Joe Blow", " just a guy like you", a "clinical expert", a "thinker", a "hard-hitting journalist", etc. Maybe they believe their own drek or maybe they sell their horseshit with knowing impunity. Either way, mainstream audiences are generally less well-equipped (and likely less interested) to actively think through their chosen scoundrels positions, despite the wishful thinking behind the "wisdom of the crowds"-types suggesting otherwise. On a free speech platform, a la Voat or Usenet, you know what you're getting itself into without any of the pretensions. The value in the content is in digesting the premises and principles behind one's thinking. How close one is to recreating society or its proclaimed values is not the goal or the measure by which one delineates, or should delineate, scoundrels from non-scoundrels. Doing so just breeds stagnation and scoundrels of a different strain: empty-headed, hypocritical pundits.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>It took a quarter of a century from inception to commercialization for mainstream audiences to have to access to the Internet (at least in the United States). Until then it was used by the very same groups of free speechers you take issue with: the cypherpunks, Usenet groupees, technically-inclined social pariahs, waggish college students, anarchists, etc. In short, the contrarians. I don't think "contrarians" in the early internet are the "scoundrels" that alexander scott was talking about. Specifically, it's possible to be a contrarian but not be that type of contrarian that you get on voat. Also, how free speech are those venues in the early internet? Were they literally "as long as it's legal we'll let you post it"? Could you get away with spamming racist posts, or would you get shunned/blocked by the community? >Of course there is adverse selection if one is looking for remnants of an Internet before or some several years after Eternal September. Mainstream usage does not imply that something is free from scoundrels. It's not free of scoundrels, but they're diluted and moderated to the point that you don't notice them.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
>> Also, how free speech are those venues in the early internet? Were they literally "as long as it's legal we'll let you post it"? Yes. On Usenet you could and still can post anything you want. Even if is/was illegal. Warez, drugs, and other less-then-savory stuff have had whole boards devoted to them. >>Could you get away with spamming racist posts, or would you get shunned/blocked by the community? Once again yes. On Usenet, you could get kicked from a particular discussion depending whether an admin thought one was racist, not racist enough, or for any reason at all. However, there was nothing stopping one from making a different account and continuing to use the same board. After all, there wasn't a real name or email requirement a la Facebook back then or even today. Think 4chan or early Reddit but with more academics. That's what Usenet was and, to a more limited extent, so were BBSs. >>It's not free of scoundrels, but they're diluted and moderated to the point that you don't notice them. The dilution you speak of is a passive one and never permanent. It just happens to exist because most people are ignorant and uninterested enough to not give to certain types of scoundrels for the time being much serious attention. Their ignorance serves as a buffer against the spread of ideas. But up to a point. That same ignorance breeds naiveté towards seriously considering certain critical issues and leaves them susceptible to manipulation when faced with an issue one "feels" is important, but lacks an internalized explanation for. At a some critical juncture - a word said, a topic raised - the once blissful, sleeping giant of collective ignorance thrusts itself into the tumult armed with nothing by shoddy memes and crackpot ideas peddled by the scoundrels of their choosing. Except those scoundrels don't call themselves "scoundrels". These mainstream-appealing types call themselves "Joe Blow", " just a guy like you", a "clinical expert", a "thinker", a "hard-hitting journalist", etc. Maybe they believe their own drek or maybe they sell their horseshit with knowing impunity. Either way, mainstream audiences are generally less well-equipped (and likely less interested) to actively think through their chosen scoundrels positions, despite the wishful thinking behind the "wisdom of the crowds"-types suggesting otherwise. On a free speech platform, a la Voat or Usenet, you know what you're getting itself into without any of the pretensions. The value in the content is in digesting the premises and principles behind one's thinking. How close one is to recreating society or its proclaimed values is not the goal or the measure by which one delineates, or should delineate, scoundrels from non-scoundrels. Doing so just breeds stagnation and scoundrels of a different strain: empty-headed, hypocritical pundits.