A social media company has the right to decline publishing my opinion, but the government's ability to restrict what the social media company publishes is restricted by the First Amendment.
David, that's my point: platforms hide behind vague "community standards" rather than stating clearly that they decline to publish trolls' "opinions" and some political content that goes against the owners' values. But this would dent their profits, so they hide behind vague "community standards". That said, they're under no obligation to state why they decline to publish a reader-submitted post. It's their site, they can do what they want with it.
JBird, I think you're right, not just about the state enabling concentration of ownership in the media but also Big Tech and Big Everything Else for the same reason: when entire sectors are controlled by a handful of nodes, it's a lot easier to control those nodes than thousands of loosely linked nodes. When there were 5,000 locally owned banks, that's tough to manage, but 5 too-big-to-fail banks--much easier.
Charles, for sure there is more opportunity for transparency but there's also a decay in responsibility: anybody can say anything without being responsible for the consequences. Sensationalized rubbish gets the clicks / "likes" so that's what being generated in super-abundance.
I don't think "social media" is even media in the traditional sense--it's all user-generated content that is "farmed" for profit from marketing user data. That's not media, and there's no responsibility for the toxic consequences of this arrangement.
The issue, so far as I'm concerned, is that we don't know what ideas and opinions we're missing, if someone's post/article has been censored or declined, because the latter never saw the light of day. We, the readers, cannot then make an informed decision about the topic. And that of course is the whole idea of censorship. The powers that be don't want us to make an informed decision, because they would look bad. The Internet has been a great boon to this new transparency. Compared to 1940, we now live in a very transparent and open discussion.
This is an oversimplification, but it seems to me that the "community standards" are often determined by the government asking/telling the media company what they are, not the company deciding on its own; it is to the benefit of the government that these standards be opaque. It is much like with privacy, the government/police pay "private companies" that often function as part of the government to get around the pesky Fifth Amendment.
This is a reason, aside from profit, I believe that the government has allowed the increasing concentration of the media in particular and corporations in general. A handful of corporations under the influence, if not control of the government, or maybe it is the government under the influence, if not control of the handful of corporations, running even controlling the lives of most Americans for both financial and political profit creating loopholes to get around both public opinion and the law.
“Boeing , a pioneer of the jet age and one of the most strategically crucial companies to American economic success, has lost its way. Getting back on track will require a daunting campaign to win back the trust of travelers, airlines, regulators, investors and its own employees. “
With how horrible air travel and airport experiences are
I talked with an over 80 couple about their terrible airport experience on Labor Day weekend
But of course it’s all about profits
But to people as you wrote Charles “trust matters”
David, that's my point: platforms hide behind vague "community standards" rather than stating clearly that they decline to publish trolls' "opinions" and some political content that goes against the owners' values. But this would dent their profits, so they hide behind vague "community standards". That said, they're under no obligation to state why they decline to publish a reader-submitted post. It's their site, they can do what they want with it.
warm regards, charles
Also Medium is mostly drivel so nothing lost
I express my First Amendment rights!
There!
It's done and I feel good.
JBird, I think you're right, not just about the state enabling concentration of ownership in the media but also Big Tech and Big Everything Else for the same reason: when entire sectors are controlled by a handful of nodes, it's a lot easier to control those nodes than thousands of loosely linked nodes. When there were 5,000 locally owned banks, that's tough to manage, but 5 too-big-to-fail banks--much easier.
Charles, for sure there is more opportunity for transparency but there's also a decay in responsibility: anybody can say anything without being responsible for the consequences. Sensationalized rubbish gets the clicks / "likes" so that's what being generated in super-abundance.
I don't think "social media" is even media in the traditional sense--it's all user-generated content that is "farmed" for profit from marketing user data. That's not media, and there's no responsibility for the toxic consequences of this arrangement.
warm regards, charles
The issue, so far as I'm concerned, is that we don't know what ideas and opinions we're missing, if someone's post/article has been censored or declined, because the latter never saw the light of day. We, the readers, cannot then make an informed decision about the topic. And that of course is the whole idea of censorship. The powers that be don't want us to make an informed decision, because they would look bad. The Internet has been a great boon to this new transparency. Compared to 1940, we now live in a very transparent and open discussion.
If Medium bars a person from commenting then the give no explanation why
Also they do not define what is acceptable or unacceptable
My theory is that they only allow very progressive comments and if you are centrist or to the right they ban you
This is an oversimplification, but it seems to me that the "community standards" are often determined by the government asking/telling the media company what they are, not the company deciding on its own; it is to the benefit of the government that these standards be opaque. It is much like with privacy, the government/police pay "private companies" that often function as part of the government to get around the pesky Fifth Amendment.
This is a reason, aside from profit, I believe that the government has allowed the increasing concentration of the media in particular and corporations in general. A handful of corporations under the influence, if not control of the government, or maybe it is the government under the influence, if not control of the handful of corporations, running even controlling the lives of most Americans for both financial and political profit creating loopholes to get around both public opinion and the law.
Interesting tidbit from
WSJ
“Boeing , a pioneer of the jet age and one of the most strategically crucial companies to American economic success, has lost its way. Getting back on track will require a daunting campaign to win back the trust of travelers, airlines, regulators, investors and its own employees. “
With how horrible air travel and airport experiences are
I talked with an over 80 couple about their terrible airport experience on Labor Day weekend
But of course it’s all about profits
But to people as you wrote Charles “trust matters”
I do appreciate your work Charles as you have read extensively and apply that to your writing
Although I have a high IQ for some reason I am a slow reader so each book finished is an achievement lol
Wonder if will ever finish Schopenhauers World as Will and Representation before I die
In any case he worked on it 35 years supposedly considering revisions
Steiner kept revising some of his books as his consciousness expanded via experience
Schopenhauer said the work of a young man is definitely different than that of an old man in terms of writing
So revising is worthwhile sometimes