If the government openly regulated speech on the Internet, we would experience this as an increase, not a decrease, in our personal freedom.
One of manymideas to come out of my discussion with @wolftivy of @palladiummag last week. Listen here:
One of manymideas to come out of my discussion with @wolftivy of @palladiummag last week. Listen here:
We’ve been expecting a truly decentralized Internet for nearly 30 years, yet every year the Internet gets more obviously centralized.
I explained why this is happening in the article that prompted this podcast. Catch up here:
palladiummag.com/2020/10/19/the…
I explained why this is happening in the article that prompted this podcast. Catch up here:
palladiummag.com/2020/10/19/the…
The flip-side of the Internet being a surveillance technology is that the Internet is also a communications technology.
In 2020, it is obvious how much personal, social, and political life has been thoroughly subsumed into the Internet. At scale, we have a new social world.
In 2020, it is obvious how much personal, social, and political life has been thoroughly subsumed into the Internet. At scale, we have a new social world.
The Internet, as a material technology consisting of fiber optic cables, data centers, and consumer electronics, has made this new social world possible.
But in this case our material technology has outpaced our social technology.
But in this case our material technology has outpaced our social technology.
Our notions of what free speech is and how it should be regulated date to a time when the printing press was the state-of-the-art in communications technology.
We are using 21st century technology with 18th century, or even older, ideas of how it should be used.
We are using 21st century technology with 18th century, or even older, ideas of how it should be used.
Libel laws, for example, worked well to mitigate the potential harm of unrestricted free speech in the era of the printing press.
But how many people are going to file libel suits today over Internet slander? Some certainly, but it is not a scale-appropriate solution.
But how many people are going to file libel suits today over Internet slander? Some certainly, but it is not a scale-appropriate solution.
The default solution we are stuck with for now is that the oligopoly of major Internet companies regulate speech online.
They do so according to an opaque set of rules with little to no methods of appeal. Is this the ideal system? Is it even sustainable in the long run?
They do so according to an opaque set of rules with little to no methods of appeal. Is this the ideal system? Is it even sustainable in the long run?
Discourse on “free speech online” will not move forward until we recognize the very new material and social realities of the Internet.
There is an opportunity to build new social technology here, but we won’t succeed if we pretend we are still in the era of the printing press.
There is an opportunity to build new social technology here, but we won’t succeed if we pretend we are still in the era of the printing press.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
