6 ms·

There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it. It’s trivial to make and distribute a

There is no church-and-state issue because the state is not stopping anyone from distributing video to whoever wants it. It’s trivial to make and distribute a video (or text website or audio recording). Just because one business does not want to pay for it does not entitle the public to it, like any other media.

bluefirebrand 4mo ago
> It’s trivial to make and distribute a video It's trivial to shout into the void It's nontrivial to get heard Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices
- cassonmars 4mo ago
  This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). Why do you feel differently?
  - gAI 4mo ago
    At least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died.
  - bluefirebrand 4mo ago
    > Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). I don't disagree I just don't think it has moved the needle that much. Powerful publishers still direct an enormous amount of the content available online And there are fewer of them, because they have been consolidating for decades now Edit: I think that a lot of people overestimate how much online publishing is independent. A vast majority of it is still backed/funded/owned by legacy media and publishers. I see this all the time with video games. People will say "look at how popular "New Release" is! Indie games are so successful nowadays!" But it turns out that the game they're talking about is backed by a huge publisher
- lotsofpulp 4mo ago
  There are 8 billion people in the world, and only 24 hours in a day. There is no reason to expect anyone to hear or see what you are saying, it’s logistically impossible. Even for professionals, hollywood, big news channels, all are becoming less and less relevant.
newshackr 4mo ago
They already paid for it though. The movie was done.
- nonethewiser 4mo ago
  So the government should force them to publish the viewpoint against their will?
nonethewiser 4mo ago
Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios. What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.
- vkou 4mo ago
  Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid? Maybe it's not so simple?
  - lotsofpulp 4mo ago
    Regardless of the legal mechanisms, there is clearly a difference in power dynamics when people could only share media via specific venues compares to now when people have basically zero barrier to sharing any and all media.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]

bluefirebrand 4mo ago

> It’s trivial to make and distribute a video It's trivial to shout into the void It's nontrivial to get heard Freedom of speech is not sufficient in a world where it is so easy for the powerful to drown out all but the biggest voices

cassonmars 4mo ago
This feels like a strange take to me. With the internet, it has never been easier for people anywhere in the (connected) world to find an audience, which we've seen to great and detrimental effects. Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). Why do you feel differently?
- gAI 4mo ago
  At least in the US, it seems like this viewpoint held more water before net neutrality died.
- bluefirebrand 4mo ago
  > Prior to this, reaching widespread audiences _required_ powerful entities (publishers, marketers, broadcasters). I don't disagree I just don't think it has moved the needle that much. Powerful publishers still direct an enormous amount of the content available online And there are fewer of them, because they have been consolidating for decades now Edit: I think that a lot of people overestimate how much online publishing is independent. A vast majority of it is still backed/funded/owned by legacy media and publishers. I see this all the time with video games. People will say "look at how popular "New Release" is! Indie games are so successful nowadays!" But it turns out that the game they're talking about is backed by a huge publisher
lotsofpulp 4mo ago
There are 8 billion people in the world, and only 24 hours in a day. There is no reason to expect anyone to hear or see what you are saying, it’s logistically impossible. Even for professionals, hollywood, big news channels, all are becoming less and less relevant.

newshackr 4mo ago

They already paid for it though. The movie was done.

nonethewiser 4mo ago
So the government should force them to publish the viewpoint against their will?

nonethewiser 4mo ago

Yeah the church and state comparison is funny. The principles guiding separation of church and state are why the government can’t stop or punish tech companies from having studios. What he’s suggesting is to violate the first amendment. You cant just tell tech companies they cant have studios.

vkou 4mo ago
Yet we could tell the studio companies that they can't have theatres. How did that not violate it? Has the amendment changed in the past century? Were the judges just stupid? Maybe it's not so simple?
- lotsofpulp 4mo ago
  Regardless of the legal mechanisms, there is clearly a difference in power dynamics when people could only share media via specific venues compares to now when people have basically zero barrier to sharing any and all media.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]