Conversation

There are only 3 real challenges to free speech at the tech level a) the need for CDNs at scale b) distortions of net neutrality c) nation-state firewalls. All other claims are about social governance on private sites, where applying free speech doctrine is a stretch at best
7
45
Baseline free speech has expanded modestly since 1776 or whatever your reference point is. About 20% beyond core case of government-critical speech in formally public spaces and media I'd say.
1
2
You can (for example) have more kinds of conversations in a bar without getting punched or kicked out by other patrons or management. You can teach more things in colleges than 100 years ago. That's a genuine de facto increase in practical, informal free speech/expression.
1
7
If a newspaper wants to print more copies it has buy more printing equipment and front more upfront costs. Reach for a paper publication is not "free", but a function of desired circulation, which in turn is a function of demand prediction etc. But that logic is obscured online.
1
8
Online, the most expensive kind of "reach" is to run your own server at home (or redundant set of mirroring servers) where your only reliance on contracts with others is with ISPs. You can run your own installs of open-source sw like Wordpress or write your own.
1
4
EVERY single thing you do to lower the cost of this setup -- using a cloud vendor, a third-party hosted application layer, a privately owned social network for distribution... these are expansions of reach achieved by trading off control for cost.
1
8
Your reach is not YOUR reach. It's a set of agreements binding you to the speech politics of a bunch of other private parties. What you say is what they endorse by renting you servers, pipes or software installs or whatever. You want minimal constraints, run your own server
2
8
Replying to and
However, these may not be reliable agreements, in that the service provider can unilaterally change the TOS overnight without notice and delete all content posted in good faith under the previous TOS with no possibility for content retrieval by the owner. As wordpress did.
1
Replying to and
And this is fine. If you enter into agreements that give counterparty right to change terms, then you cannot complain when they in fact do so. You can only delete your account. The most you can reasonably ask is to take a copy of your past data with you, which GDPR enables
Replying to and
Well' I'm learning a lot here. The TOS actually do say "Automattic may terminate your access to all or any part of our Services at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. " Sounds hypothetical so it's a bit of a shock to see it implemented