111–120 of 606 posts
I say Bah to the entire censorship debate! My critique of Substack is that our lesson from the last ten years is simple: speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. Our problem isn't censorship. Our problem is that our political/economic/relig…
define this and rejoice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives of engagement metrics provided the high winds. So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy…
The silver lining of this awkward middle ground is the certainty that censorship is the wrong way to go. We may be doomed if people remain so easy to manipulate, but if you really believe that censorship is counter-productive, then education is the only path out.
I say Bah to the entire censorship debate! My critique of Substack is that our lesson from the last ten years is simple: speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. Our problem isn't censorship. Our problem is that our political/economic/relig…
> in the public interest define this and rejoice
Is this the kind of censorship we want to empower. One guy is going to decide who's views are acceptable and who's views are not. Turns out those who strongly disagree with him, their views are not acceptable according to him.
I say Bah to the entire censorship debate! My critique of Substack is that our lesson from the last ten years is simple: speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. Our problem isn't censorship. Our problem is that our political/economic/relig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives of engagement metrics provided the high winds. So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy…
> So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely by accident. Don't think it is an accident. The ruling class has set this stage by design. There is little to no critical thinking being taught in K-12. Create a malleable p…
I say Bah to the entire censorship debate! My critique of Substack is that our lesson from the last ten years is simple: speech should happen primarily on platforms that are prohibited from profit-seeking and run in the public interest. Censorship on these platforms should be prohibited, of course, but so should any form of profit seeking. Our problem isn't censorship. Our problem is that our political/economic/relig…
Consumers choose to speak on platforms that are profit-seeking. How are you going to force your fellow citizens to stop doing so, and to use the non-profit versions instead?
There are, realistically, probably a bunch of things you could do. Repeal Section 230 except for public benefit corps and setup stringent rules about how they are run / how for-profits interact with them. And so on. I assume at least one constitutional amendment would be required, since money is speech.
I don't pretend the solution is easy, but I know for DAMN sure that yet another VC-funded social media company (substack) is not the answer. I am sure they disagree. I am also sure that Zuckerberg was sincere in the early days about bringing the world together.
Again, it's a critique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The silver lining of this awkward middle ground is the certainty that censorship is the wrong way to go. We may be doomed if people remain so easy to manipulate, but if you really believe that censorship is counter-productive, then education is the only path out.
Ugh, no! I mean, yes, but also, stop getting sucked into this stupid debate. It's a red herring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax code literally already does.
If you have a pointer to that definition I'd love to read it. I mean that earnestly.
The platforms where we talk online should be most analogous, legally, to a library or city hall.