I’ve written a lot recently about network neutrality
on other blogs, and the concern that both telecom companies and large content
companies like Facebook and Google will control inordinately what their customers
see, for political and “fiduciary” purposes.
I make it my own practice to look at news sources
myself. Even though I use Facebook and
Twitter (Instagram not so much) I make the effort to go to news sites myself, especially
all the major ones (Washington Post, New York Times, Wal Street Journal, CNN,
NBC, ABC, CBS, as well as conservative (OAN. Fox, Intellectual Takeout, Reason,
and yes, some Breitbart and some Milo) and “leftist” (Truthout), and some of
the LGBT sites (Blade), and tech sites (Wired, CNET).
The major newspapers do have paywalls. Right now I subscribe to three of them.
I also use what I think is the best source for my own
articles. These often include newspaper
sites that have paywalls. Facebook is
reportedly working on a way to have a universal subscription to anything that
previews but has a paywall. But the
point that the “Left” makes, especially in the network neutrality debate, is well
taken: less well-off people don’t have
the money for paid subscriptions or fast lane service, and will be more
vulnerable to believe “propaganda” that the companies encourage them to
see. While fake news should recede as a
problem, vulnerability of poorer people to control of what they know and understand
could increase in this Trump-like world.
I am concerned about the future of access to
individual sites (not so much free-hosted blogs like this one but to hosted
sites of small businesses and writers) because the “proles” may have less
reason to know that they’re there.
The battle against elitism has only brought it back.
In the meantime, this Thanksgiving day, notice YouTube’s
new rules for content that carries ads (story in the Verge)
No comments:
Post a Comment