Science Fiction writer Cory Doctorow (who also writes
for Electronic Frontier Foundation) has an op-ed from the future, which he says
he should not have to publish in the New York Times.
The op-ed suggests that soon social media sites and
even webhosts will prohibit “amateurs” from talking about politics on their own. Section 230 protections will be removed (and
maybe DMCA Safe Harbor too – look at what happened in the EU with Article 17)
and all platforms will be treated as publishers. Self-publishing will be prohibited unless it
can pay for itself with legitimate commerce (not patronage).
If you want to have a voice, you will have to join a “registered”
non-profit and be willing so support things you don’t personally believe for other
“oppressed” intersectional groups to be protected yourself.
Some businesses want this, too: they want door-to-door and telemarketing work
and high pressure salesmanship to be socially legitimate again. I found that out in various unsolicited job
interviews in the 2000s. The Internet MGTOW’s
were destroying solidarity. Even
Economic Invincibility (Martin Goldberg) admits it.
Facebook’s prodding of people to run non-profit fundraisers
under their own name publicly is symptomatic of this problem.
This is what the radical, authoritarian, “Stalinist”
Left wants now – it wants to force people to join them.
I’ll turn 76 soon, maybe I will be gone by then, but
my “soul” will still know from whatever Universe my afterlife takes place in.
Quilette has a similar piece online “How free speech dies online”, by Daniel Friedman. The article recognizes the stochastic problem
with speech: it isn’t just an individual
piece of content, but the intentions of the speaker. That’s why YouTube has
started banning ideologies, and Facebook “dangerous individuals and
organizations”.
The small social network Ravelry, that appeals to knitting
and people who make quilts and run bees (like for the AIDS quilts of the past),
ban accounts for people who express support for Trump. Here is a slippery
slope: a social network practically demanding
political loyalty to its candidates (NPR Vanessa Romo). My own cousin, who passed away in Ohio from
ALS in early 2018, was very big on quilting. (The site does say "don't talk about it here", but it also says it can't be inclusive if it allows talk supporting Trump. It says "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support of White supremacy." That just isn't true. Eduardo Sanchez-Ubanell made a comedy video about dating a Trump supporter. Is such satire a way of saying this statement by Ravelry is untrue?
Another group "rpg.net" had banned talk of Trump, considering his administration "an elected hate group" (Timcast, 2019/6/24, also vice.).
Another group "rpg.net" had banned talk of Trump, considering his administration "an elected hate group" (Timcast, 2019/6/24, also vice.).
There is also a report from Project Veritas about an
attempt within a major tech company to prevent a “Trump situation” with the
2020 election. This video (“Machine
Learning Fairness”) is on Bitchute and it can’t be embedded.
The video from
Ben Shapiro on June 6 talks about YouTube’s “fuzzy line” and goalpost-moving
and vulnerability to a “heckler’s veto”.
The Verge, in an article by Julia Alexander, explains why "demonetization" of big (possibly extremist or stochastic) YouTube channels "doesn't work". Carlos Maza already tweeted it. But so did I.
The Verge, in an article by Julia Alexander, explains why "demonetization" of big (possibly extremist or stochastic) YouTube channels "doesn't work". Carlos Maza already tweeted it. But so did I.
No comments:
Post a Comment