Having had the experience a few times now of trying to type something (e.g. the domain name of a 3D printed gun files host) into various boxes on the internet & seeing it "Noped" by the platform, I didn't agree with @zeynep on this when it was first published, & still don't.https://twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/1281694551808376833 …
-
Show this thread
-
Censorship is still a real thing, & it's getting worse. The 3D printed gun people were on the leading edge of it, but it's coming for everyone's unpopular viewpoint eventually. Furthermore, in saying that u can still "publish" an idea online, just maybe not on your...
4 replies 5 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
...preferred tech platform, /she/ is the one being unrealistic about the modern internet, not the free speech absolutists. The modern internet means that FB, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit are the public square, & if you're denied access to them you're denied access to it.
1 reply 3 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
She has this exactly backwards. The architecture of the modern internet -- consolidation of public speech into a few platforms -- makes it very easy to set up chokepoints & operate them.pic.twitter.com/LteYYSH8hG
3 replies 4 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jonst0kes
It's a very different kind of choke-point, though. One of attention, not speech, something I talk about a lot. It's not *traditional* censorship; but it's not without power.pic.twitter.com/PW4n84ggvX
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
It has in common with traditional censorship the fact that an authority is deleting someone's speech. It's just that this isn't a governmental authority. But frankly it's quasi-govermental -- I'd say it's a de facto government.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @jonst0kes @zeynep
I think FB is large enough and powerful enough that its power over what speech a population can see or not see actually exceeds that of any government since maybe before the written word.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @jonst0kes
I don't see how you read my stuff to say Facebook is not powerful. It's different, though. It is immensely powerful and *yet* you can put things up on a website outside it's reach. I'm not arguing at all the platforms aren't powerful; just that it doesn't map to old arguments.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I agree it doesn't map to old arguments, & that you can still put up a random website outside its reach. But at what point is someone effectively censored? It's like
@jonlech just pointed out: if they're booted off DNS but I can still manually type in an IP address, is that ok?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you cannot put an idea on any of about 5 platforms, that idea is for all practical purposes MORE censored than if the government had banned an idea from network news in the 50's.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You're reading it from the other end. I'm not arguing Facebook doesn't have the power to marginalize/ deplatform but that *even when you are on it*, it does not function even as a faulty version of marketplace of ideas, the thing you're supposed to strive to get from free speech.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.