5 ms·

Do you think they just let anyone publish in a newspaper? Outside of cable access, you couldn't just hop on TV previously either. This is entirely a social med

Do you think they just let anyone publish in a newspaper? Outside of cable access, you couldn't just hop on TV previously either. This is entirely a social media age problem. This isn't "OMG, we're censoring" it's "we're applying the same limitations that have always existed on a new medium" - which is people deciding on what is in good taste (to them) and appropriate for their platform (to them).

slibhb 5y ago
They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so.
- smachiz 5y ago
  >They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. >That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. Solid, cogent, fair or interesting letters get published in credible platforms (i.e. newspapers and TV) - as determined by the Editors or the OpEd review boards depending on the governance of the particular platform. > and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Hell, even in full page advertisements, Newspapers can and will choose not to take your money if it's something that they think is harmful or antithetical to their platform. And they always have. This isn't new or unique. >It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so. What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    > Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. > Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. They sure did on Twitter. Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high. > Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"? > What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that. It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.
    - smachiz 5y ago
      >It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. Explain to me how you would get your OpEd published or get on TV tomorrow, today, or 20 years ago. Explain to me how _everyone_ gets to do it. >Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. The point is it doesn't need to be. Newspapers are now no longer constrained by how much paper they can fold. TV is no longer constrained by how many channels can be broadcast OTA or via Coax. >Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high. Censorship is not the same thing as not publishing your drivel. Are you suggesting that if you submit an OpEd to the Wall Street Journal and they don't publish it that they're censoring you? They're making a curated, editorial choice, it's not censorship - they are a private company with no obligation to publish or give platform to your ideas. >Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"? This is what I'm telling you - in all media formats prior to The Internet, the owner of the platform or editor of the platform or governance for OpEds determined what was worth publishing/platforming and what wasn't. >It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Is that good or bad? >Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. We burned "witches". There has never been a time in human history where we were more tolerant than today. The Catholic Church murdered people for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric. We have less curation than we've ever had in human history - by miles. We may have over-rotated. >There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up. There has always been consolidation - through money and power. There was an opening in the 20th century, and we've been less constrained every day since the invention of the printing press.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
the_doctah 5y ago
Twitter is only barely comparable to a newspaper, and only in the ways that fit your narrative. It's almost like new technologies force us into new ways of thinking about things.

slibhb 5y ago

They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so.

smachiz 5y ago
>They don't let "just anyone" publish in a newspaper but almost all major newspapers allow voices across the political spectrum in the form of letters and op-eds. Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. >That's what free speech culture is about. It's the idea that "everyone gets their say" Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. Solid, cogent, fair or interesting letters get published in credible platforms (i.e. newspapers and TV) - as determined by the Editors or the OpEd review boards depending on the governance of the particular platform. > and by disagreeing and arguing, we get closer to the truth. Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Hell, even in full page advertisements, Newspapers can and will choose not to take your money if it's something that they think is harmful or antithetical to their platform. And they always have. This isn't new or unique. >It's sad that more and more people are taking your view, which is that people can publish contrary opinions but there's no reason in particular to do so. What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > Yes... that are heavily curated by the Editors. They don't publish every OpEd, nor every Letter to the Editor they get. Yes, they post dissenting viewpoints constantly - that is the function. But that isn't free speech at all in the context of social media and what you're describing. It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. > Again, not everyone - not even most people get their say. Certainly none of the rantings and ravings get published. They sure did on Twitter. Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high. > Agreed - but that has nothing to do with allowing all view points and anyone with an idea, no matter how dangerous or how bad. Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"? > What I'm trying to share with you is that you are the outlier here. What everyone is describing is more or less status quo prior to social media taking an "anything goes" stance. That has never been the reality prior to that. It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up.
  - smachiz 5y ago
    >It's exactly free speech in the context I'm describing; the idea that dissent is good and everyone gets their say. Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. Explain to me how you would get your OpEd published or get on TV tomorrow, today, or 20 years ago. Explain to me how _everyone_ gets to do it. >Social media is free and open so it's quite clear that the bar for curation is going to be lower than a newspaper with finite space. The point is it doesn't need to be. Newspapers are now no longer constrained by how much paper they can fold. TV is no longer constrained by how many channels can be broadcast OTA or via Coax. >Virtually everyone should get their say. The bar for censorship should be extremely high. Censorship is not the same thing as not publishing your drivel. Are you suggesting that if you submit an OpEd to the Wall Street Journal and they don't publish it that they're censoring you? They're making a curated, editorial choice, it's not censorship - they are a private company with no obligation to publish or give platform to your ideas. >Yes it does. How could it not? And who determines what is "dangerous or bad"? This is what I'm telling you - in all media formats prior to The Internet, the owner of the platform or editor of the platform or governance for OpEds determined what was worth publishing/platforming and what wasn't. >It used to be the case that most speech was in-person and local. Is that good or bad? >Most people were relatively tolerant and there wasn't a lot of curation. We burned "witches". There has never been a time in human history where we were more tolerant than today. The Catholic Church murdered people for suggesting that our solar system was heliocentric. We have less curation than we've ever had in human history - by miles. We may have over-rotated. >There was a consolidation in the 20th century, which is what you're referring to. Now things are opening back up. There has always been consolidation - through money and power. There was an opening in the 20th century, and we've been less constrained every day since the invention of the printing press.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

the_doctah 5y ago

Twitter is only barely comparable to a newspaper, and only in the ways that fit your narrative. It's almost like new technologies force us into new ways of thinking about things.