4 ms·

Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligat

Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Now, when sharing data online is cheaper and cheaper, this limiting factor is fading away. -- At the same time, we have just 16 hours of attention per day. So you have to decide whether you want to invest your time in more curated publishing (I read a lot of books, often old books which stood the test of time), or if you want to go to the public square where practically anyone can shout as he sees fit. I do that too, but I try to moderate both my time using social media and what I see there. And I am proud I haven't used TikTok, I stopped using Facebook, Instagram, I don't watch any Reels, Shorts, etc. So publishers still are not lost, but what they are selling is not curation because of technological limitations, but because of limits of how much we can read and see in the day. -- At the same time, publishers are biased. They publish what they see as high quality. They publish what they consider worthy. They publish things they would want to read. And they have publication checklists that prohibit publishing certain things even if they are true. Public squares don't have such an attribute. There are things to be published and heard, even when mainstream people would disagree. There are things that should be public, even when it's against a law in certain countries. And online anonymity mixed with public square enables people to tell about atrocities that happen, or about corruption, government inefficiencies, about people breaking human rights and so on. -- If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. Because publishers don't play this role any more. They are biased, people realize it and are fed of it.

DrScientist 2y ago
> Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. I'd believe that if they didn't promote or suppress content - in my view as soon as you get into that game you become part of the publishing process. > On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Eh? Publishers take care of what they publish because they are responsible for it in law - if they publish a lie about somebody ( even if it's a quote from somebody else - ie somebody elses 'content' ) - they are on the hook for that. In a similar way, if I defame you and then a newspaper/facebook promotes that around the world, most of the damage actually comes from the promotion of the original defamation - the publishing/amplification. > If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. You are already assuming we live in a society where people are too afraid to say what they think in public . And I would also argue if you stand on a soap box in a public square then you are not anonymous - you are public. You are confusing a public square with people whispering behind masks.

DrScientist 2y ago

> Social media are not publishers. They are way more public squares, but online. I'd believe that if they didn't promote or suppress content - in my view as soon as you get into that game you become part of the publishing process. > On top of that, even when publishers usually curate content, there is no obligation to do so. It's just something that has been done, because publishing used to be expensive. Eh? Publishers take care of what they publish because they are responsible for it in law - if they publish a lie about somebody ( even if it's a quote from somebody else - ie somebody elses 'content' ) - they are on the hook for that. In a similar way, if I defame you and then a newspaper/facebook promotes that around the world, most of the damage actually comes from the promotion of the original defamation - the publishing/amplification. > If you end anonymity and public squares, you end a channel for democratic feedback. You are already assuming we live in a society where people are too afraid to say what they think in public . And I would also argue if you stand on a soap box in a public square then you are not anonymous - you are public. You are confusing a public square with people whispering behind masks.