3 ms·

Blogs getting banned was much rarer back then because people were less censorious. But the proper model isn't blogs, it's e-mail. Imagine getting banned from yo

by chroma 4y ago

Blogs getting banned was much rarer back then because people were less censorious. But the proper model isn't blogs, it's e-mail. Imagine getting banned from your email provider because you sent a political opinion, or even a sarcastic comment. That would be absurd.

dale_glass 4y ago
People weren't less censorious. The early Internet was full of professionals. There wasn't that much to censor because people were mostly crafting pages connected to their professional work, or showcasing their cool hobbies. Once the normal people started flooding in, there was a lot of drama and a lot of censorship, it was just contained in silos. Forums had moderation, cliques and weird rules. A discussion about a game for kids could explode in drama, banning and rivalries, it just didn't spread very far like it does today, when you have whole sites and groups dedicated to cataloguing all the drama happening elsewhere.
im3w1l 4y ago
I think the separation of email provider (identity, very rarely bans) and listserver provider (community) is pretty neat.
acdha 4y ago
People definitely got banned back then. There were three key differences: 1. Getting banned from Twitter means leaving a global namespace. Getting banned from the comments on someone’s blog was far less serious, and if someone on a group blog had a falling out it just meant that they setup another one (the Mastodon model). Earlier things like Usenet groups had moderation but people could easily move to another group. 2. The stakes were lower: the early internet was full of academics, professionals, etc. and still had this aura of not really mattering. That doesn’t mean that everyone was nice but the ratio was a lot better and it wasn’t anywhere near as coordinated – the creationists and Scientologists were both annoying but they certainly didn’t work together. The odds of some online flap even reaching the awareness of your friends, family, or coworkers were low and it probably would have seemed more like an amusing joke than something serious. 3. An American specialization of the previous point: the hardcore right-wing took over the Republican Party, successfully purged the moderates, and started recruiting young reactionaries. 9/11 changed what a lot of people felt was acceptable to say or do – I remember when Glenn Reynolds was a fairly normal-sounding law professor with a blog in that brief span before 9/11 & the war blogs broke him – and over the 2000s they felt fewer checks as their power & numbers grew. Obama getting elected brought a LOT of voices out which many of us had thought had disappeared in our parents’ or grandparents’ generation, and by the mid-2010s they were recruiting young people from anti-feminist communities in places like 4chan and Reddit (before GamerGate but that’s when it really ramped up). Nothing unprecedented in terms of message but the numbers and degree to which they were welcomed into the party and started setting the tone was dramatic. There’s a fair argument that some of those views were not uncommon before but had been more genteelly expressed, but I am reminded of how aggressively GOP leaders shut down David Duke in the 90s. I mention politics not just because I think that normalized a lot of bad behavior but also because it changed how people responded. “Internet drama” wasn’t taken seriously but when it started having real-world consequences and impacting national politics, a lot of people - even those who self-described as free speech advocates – started reconsidering how best to respond. Volume also enters into the picture: the first time you see something, you might try to engage. By the dozenth time, you’re a lot more inclined to get out the ban hammer.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  Fantastic and accurate summary.
fzeroracer 4y ago
According to whom were people less censorious? You? Where's your data on this point? What eras of the internet have you lived through? Because I've gone through the whole IRC and early forums era of 20+ years ago. People got banned, formed their own IRC channels or forums colloquially called treehouses and life went on. Blogs were no different and if a blog was particularly bad it would get banned and the user would go and host their own blog elsewhere. Hell, you can go further back and see Usenet banning stuff related to white power groups.
- chroma 4y ago
  To give you some idea of the eras of the internet I've been through: I used BBSes. I posted on alt.2600.hackerz. I attended the defcon shoot before deviant took it over. In the past, you had to do some crazy stuff to get your blog taken down or get k-lined. Now your internet presence (and possibly your career) are at risk if you don't keep up with the new taboos.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Were people ever banned for not banning someone (whom they haven't even had any contact with)?
toofy 4y ago
> …was much rarer back then because people were less censorious. i wish this absurd idea would disappear. communities on the internet have _always_ banned people for all sorts of reasons. always. since bbs’, since irc, since forums, since email lists, and on and on and on. always have.

by chroma 4y ago

dale_glass 4y ago

People weren't less censorious. The early Internet was full of professionals. There wasn't that much to censor because people were mostly crafting pages connected to their professional work, or showcasing their cool hobbies. Once the normal people started flooding in, there was a lot of drama and a lot of censorship, it was just contained in silos. Forums had moderation, cliques and weird rules. A discussion about a game for kids could explode in drama, banning and rivalries, it just didn't spread very far like it does today, when you have whole sites and groups dedicated to cataloguing all the drama happening elsewhere.

im3w1l 4y ago

I think the separation of email provider (identity, very rarely bans) and listserver provider (community) is pretty neat.

acdha 4y ago

People definitely got banned back then. There were three key differences: 1. Getting banned from Twitter means leaving a global namespace. Getting banned from the comments on someone’s blog was far less serious, and if someone on a group blog had a falling out it just meant that they setup another one (the Mastodon model). Earlier things like Usenet groups had moderation but people could easily move to another group. 2. The stakes were lower: the early internet was full of academics, professionals, etc. and still had this aura of not really mattering. That doesn’t mean that everyone was nice but the ratio was a lot better and it wasn’t anywhere near as coordinated – the creationists and Scientologists were both annoying but they certainly didn’t work together. The odds of some online flap even reaching the awareness of your friends, family, or coworkers were low and it probably would have seemed more like an amusing joke than something serious. 3. An American specialization of the previous point: the hardcore right-wing took over the Republican Party, successfully purged the moderates, and started recruiting young reactionaries. 9/11 changed what a lot of people felt was acceptable to say or do – I remember when Glenn Reynolds was a fairly normal-sounding law professor with a blog in that brief span before 9/11 & the war blogs broke him – and over the 2000s they felt fewer checks as their power & numbers grew. Obama getting elected brought a LOT of voices out which many of us had thought had disappeared in our parents’ or grandparents’ generation, and by the mid-2010s they were recruiting young people from anti-feminist communities in places like 4chan and Reddit (before GamerGate but that’s when it really ramped up). Nothing unprecedented in terms of message but the numbers and degree to which they were welcomed into the party and started setting the tone was dramatic. There’s a fair argument that some of those views were not uncommon before but had been more genteelly expressed, but I am reminded of how aggressively GOP leaders shut down David Duke in the 90s. I mention politics not just because I think that normalized a lot of bad behavior but also because it changed how people responded. “Internet drama” wasn’t taken seriously but when it started having real-world consequences and impacting national politics, a lot of people - even those who self-described as free speech advocates – started reconsidering how best to respond. Volume also enters into the picture: the first time you see something, you might try to engage. By the dozenth time, you’re a lot more inclined to get out the ban hammer.

scrollaway 4y ago
Fantastic and accurate summary.

fzeroracer 4y ago

According to whom were people less censorious? You? Where's your data on this point? What eras of the internet have you lived through? Because I've gone through the whole IRC and early forums era of 20+ years ago. People got banned, formed their own IRC channels or forums colloquially called treehouses and life went on. Blogs were no different and if a blog was particularly bad it would get banned and the user would go and host their own blog elsewhere. Hell, you can go further back and see Usenet banning stuff related to white power groups.

chroma 4y ago
To give you some idea of the eras of the internet I've been through: I used BBSes. I posted on alt.2600.hackerz. I attended the defcon shoot before deviant took it over. In the past, you had to do some crazy stuff to get your blog taken down or get k-lined. Now your internet presence (and possibly your career) are at risk if you don't keep up with the new taboos.
int_19h 4y ago
Were people ever banned for not banning someone (whom they haven't even had any contact with)?

toofy 4y ago

> …was much rarer back then because people were less censorious. i wish this absurd idea would disappear. communities on the internet have _always_ banned people for all sorts of reasons. always. since bbs’, since irc, since forums, since email lists, and on and on and on. always have.