Now I get they are using platforms which can indiscriminately ban whoever they want. Fine lets say infowars makes their own platform.
Doing okay on their own platform when all of a sudden...
Now common payment processors ban them from being able to receive funding through traditional methods.
When all banks ban you where do you go? Crypto currency of course.
When all common outlets ban you at the same time it doesn't seem much like "World Press Freedom Day" it is more like "Globalization Freedom Day" where you talk against the mainstream opinions and will be silenced. No freedom for you!
Just my 2 cents, not that I endorse infowars I just believe in true and honest discourse and to let the idiots keep talking to be able to show how stupid they are. Banning them only reinforces their audience and empowers them to be more fringe.
I am finding the same thing in corporate culture. If you identify problems in the corporation, the solution isn't to solve the problems, it's to isolate and vilify the person who identifies the problem.
In your example the people themselves are not the problem. If you change the example to be a person who is themselves a toxic, disruptive individual, then merely isolating and vilifying isn't enough: You fire them. "Deplatforming" is a close equivalent.
I used to edit a small newspaper. It wasn't uncommon (a few times a year) to receive advertising orders from Holocaust deniers. I did not run those ads. Maybe that was deplatforming, but I don't think it was wrong, or against the interests of free speech to do so.
By analogy, what if the electric utilities started banning people from using electricity based on their speech? Or maybe gas stations refusing to sell you fuel? How far do we let that go? Boycotts are great and all, but the power of the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. So today, are we so dependent on that voice that the 1st amendment needs to apply to it? Or is it okay to limit politically incorrect opinions to meatspace and save the internet for only approved speech?
Media platforms are the inherent venue for this content. Utility companies are not. There's a strong difference between a media platform denying him access and a basic utility doing the same. In fact their are laws (in the US at least) governing this sort of thing with respect to Utilities.
If you want to pull in something like the electric utility, you need to change the example from a trollish media figure to someone messing with the power grid via their utility hookup. Doing that might very well get you banned.
I do agree that if all banks want to cut off infowars that is their choice.
I also agree that all platforms can ban who they want on their private platforms.
It still doesn't make it the correct action as it just emboldens their audience.
If what they are saying is truly so horrible and shocking the public would be able to see this and easily make the choice to ignore them.
Also what has infowars done that has caused real world harm other than the example everyone uses with Sandy Hook. Not that I'm again endorsing or defending him, but Alex Jones did retract and apologize for his coverage during that time. What makes his apology any weaker than that of CNN's apology for the harassment the Covington kids had to endure?
What he did for Sandy Hook is just the most visible example of what he does for many things. He's pulled the same trick for the Parkland shooting and other attacks. He also promotes anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, arguably more damaging than any "crisis actor" claim he makes.
Most of the public does recognize this as horrible and ridiculous, and ignore him. Deplatforming is the corporate version of ignoring him.
I imagine it's somewhere between deceptively yelling fire in a crowded theatre and expressing genuine, if provably false, concerns about vaccines.
Deplatforming from social sites and banks is the least we can do when it's not clear where the law should step in and claims dispute overwhelming evidence.
As someone whose had a comprised immune system I'd prefer to err on the side of stopping the spread of false medical information.
Agreed. I would be extremely worried if speech like that coming from Alex Jones was actually made illegal. Deplatforming, however, is not much different than a site like Inforwars failing to include nuanced opinions that differ from their narratives. They've "deplatformed" dissenting voices by never allowing them to begin with. The fact that their soap box happens to be smaller than google or facebook doesn't really change that.
And in the case of anti-vax, while many people may be genuine in their sentiment, it is primarily based on a piece of research that was, by the author, acknowledged to be fraudulent with fabricated facts. [0]
Maybe the rise of the internet would have given birth to the anti-vax movement anyway, but my recollection is that Wakefield's fraudulent research was the catalyst that got that ball rolling. Prior, there had been an anti-vax movement in response to the first ever vaccine (for small pox) around the 1800's. It took society time accept the idea of vaccination. Regrettable, albeit understandable. For most of 100 years there wasn't much anti-vax sentiment until DTP faced criticism for a limited time in the late 70's early 80's. The things were calm again until Wakefield's fraud, and the rise of the internet has sustained it since.
I'm not expert on this but I think CNN apologised pretty quickly after it seemed they'd made an error. Jones's seems to have kept on and not apologised till years later when facing a lawsuit that may bankrupt him.
>>I just believe in true and honest discourse and to let the idiots keep talking to be able to show how stupid they are.
When it is just idiots, fine.
The problem is when it goes beyond idiocy and into dishonest discussion, spreading lies, and state actors weaponizing dezinformatsiya, and such lies being spread either directly by state actors, by their compromised assets, or merely manipulated Useful Idiots.
At that point, it is beyond the question of Free Speech and into yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
It is already getting people killed, undermining democratic institutions around the world, and deplatforming is the least we can do to protect the society.
There is also the paradox of intolerance. If the intolerant people are allowed free speech, they will not tolerate anyone else's free speech, and will bring the end of free speech.
Being absolutist about rules (e.g., absolute free speech for everyone) makes it easy to think about, but reality is messier than that, and we need to deal with the complexity.
The problem isn't that Infowars has content against the mainstream, it's that there is a clear, solid line from Infowars to physical harm being done to others in the real world.
You can express all the counterculture views you want, right up until you start to harm people with those views, then the conversation shifts.
No one is trying to take out the time cube guy, for example...
The thing that makes this a bit weird to me is that the New York Times is a for-profit organization. If you purely want to fund journalism, your dollars may go further with a nonprofit like ProPublica.
I'm absolutely in favor of supporting great papers like the Times as well, so I'm not sure what my point is here. But it seems misguided to compare news corporations to public institutions.
I think of it as any other product type situation on the surface. I'm willing to pay for content.
Beyond that there is an element of wanting to support an industry that I think is important to maintaining a healthy democracy, thus I don't care so much how much anyone else is paying.
Like a Humble Bundle forward-slash Patreon for news? I'd certainly try out that kind of subscription model with a smaller monthly contribution, and then scale up if the content was consistently engaging.
Seems akin to how a comment further up likened a model to one that follows public-radio/TV; "supported by viewers/listeners like you"--and I'm already a monthly contributor to my local NPR affiliate.
But if the New York Times removed their paywall (and didn't introduce some other subscriber-only benefit), you wouldn't really be paying for their content anymore, right? Because you could get that content anyway.
A payment that doesn't directly benefit you is a donation.
I can't read/watch any news outlet anymore. It's become utter trash (regardless of your political leanings.) Half the time I feel like I'm reading a tabloid publication instead of a news site.
Part of the problem is that due to changing revenue models, online publications have turned to controversial headlining and identity topics (the new culture wars) to generate clicks.
I find stuff like this more emotive and more suited to activism than informative, and I'm more interested in information than feelings when I read the news in the morning.
The NYTimes ('paper of record') just tweeted the OK symbol hoax. WaPo stated Louis Farrakhan is a right wing figure yesterday. Where are good quality newspapers?
White nationalists are trying to ruin the OK hand-sign for everybody else by posing for photos in large groups while making the OK hand-sign.
As far as I can tell they're attempting the following:
1. Poison the OK hand-sign in political contexts
2. Wait for a politician to use it, be it as a stooge (unaware of the new association) or as a dog-whistle.
3. Wait for the media to tie the white-nationalist association and politician's use of the symbol together
4. Cry foul: "You liberal media dogs are crazy, that's just the OK hand-sign!"
5. People who are unaware that white nationalists have been using the symbol grow their distrust of the media and may become more sympathetic to white nationalists. After all, the media was 'wrong' about the hand sign. What else could they be wrong about?
Because the white nationalists are inherently duplicitous, they see no problem communicating like this - in the open until challenged, at which point it becomes a 'joke', or a 'misunderstanding', or 'media overreach'.
> White nationalists are trying to ruin the OK hand-sign for everybody else by posing for photos in large groups while making the OK hand-sign.
No they're not. People have been doing this for decades. They're not white nationalists.
It's a prank by 4/8chan users. Like 'rainbow parties' and 'thigh bridge' and any number of other things created to waste time. That you (and the NYT) believe it is falling into the trap and doing exactly what they want.
It's _like_ rainbow parties, except for the explicitly political bent that seems only to advance white nationalist motives/politics. Certainly, creation by 8chan users does not disprove white nationalism. If anything it makes it more believable. Have you seen the political discourse on 8chan lately? One of us has fallen into the trap but I'm not sure who.
> Have you seen the political discourse on 8chan lately?
Yep. 8chan is trash. There's undoubtedly some actual white nationalists there, there's also a massive amount of losers who need attention.
You and the NYT are taking what they say at face value, giving them exactly the attention they want, and rewarding their behavior ensuring there'll be more of it.
It is literally a 4chan hoax, much like the recent seperate but equal rainbow flags. It's clever, even of grossly misanthropic. Never underestimate the effert bored teens will spend 'for the lulz'.
"Bored teens" spreading white nationalist memes is still elevating white nationalism, no matter whether it is for "the lulz". "It is just a joke" is in no way an excuse for this behavior.
The meme, in this case, is that the OK sign is support for fascism/nazis/etc. That's the meme that the "bored teens" are spreading, and the meme that the NYT bought.
I'm not sure I'd describe Farrakhan as left-wing either, though. He sounds an awful lot like the other extremists that were banned from Facebook yesterday.
Clickbait has changed a lot of the landscape. But this is good news for self-aware people. It encourages to look for alternative and down to earth news sources.
Harsh, but I work in the industry and I know exactly what you mean.
That's why writing business news is where it's at. The ability to slant writing becomes harder, but not impossible, when you're talking about finance and prices.
This is something I love about watching business / finance news channels. Everyone is trying as hard as they can not to lie because it's illegal in their context.
The thing about subscribing the New York Times - is that you still have to deal with a tremendous number of ads, seemingly every other paragraph. The solution is simple, just install an ad-blocker. But then why not use that ad-blocker to just bock cookies and bypass the paywall, since I’m gaming the system anyways? I guess I could consider my subscription a donation because I’m going to use an ad-blocker either way. But why can’t I pay to have a great experience? I considered subscribing through the iOS app, but of course there is no way to block ads. So unfortunately, I don’t receive any breaking news notifications.
The browser experience is ok with an ad-blocker. But why not reward your subscribers with a great reading experience? Remove the ads, focus on good typography, etc, and I would pay whatever you ask. Preferably through an app.
Edit: I’ve been a subscriber for years, and I’m willing to pay regardless. I just think they could improve by making the subscription meaningful to a generation that doesn’t want to see ads.
I can only guess... when you buy the actual paper there's still ads. In the end they are an advertising company. They write things to increase circulation (hits and copies) so they can get more people to see more ads. That's how it's always worked. That "subscribe and you won't see ads" probably makes no sense at all to company that spent decades selling paying subscribers printed ads. People spend money to buy print ads, why wouldn't they mind paying money to see ads on their electronic device as well? They (The Times) and most subscribers probably don't think it's any big deal to pay to see more ads.
For most publications, the newsstand sales are a minuscule amount of income - subscriptions are a bit more (and help them plan budgets), but ads is how they keep the lights on. But it’s harder and harder to do that bc no one wants to pay for quality reporting and fact checking when they can get rumors and opinions for free on any clickbait website that pays writers pennies and has fired their fact checkers and copy editors.
If you truly want quality journalism, pick the publications you don’t want to lose and subscribe - and know that the ads are what keep the cost low enough for the average person to get reliable news.
My other complaint about subscribing is that it's damned expensive and their subscription terms are awkward and arbitrary. Give me a year for $50 and I'd give them my credit card yesterday.
I like the NY Times, and I'm not saying it should be free, but this seems a self-contradictory stunt. In recognizing the importance of access to a free press, they take down the roadblock to accessing their own content. But only for 3 days.
If this were something like Earth Day, a company vowing to recycle it's waste, but only for a day, would immediately seem just as ridiculous as this does after brief reflection.
Yes, I get that, but by recognizing press freedom (free as in speech) they are providing free press (free as in beer), which rather conflates the two. By implicitly recognizing that the two are intertwined, it's a contradiction of their support of press freedom to charge the rest of the year.
The conflict would be resolved if they kept the paywall and said something like "remaining solvent is a necessary requirement for press freedom. In honer of World Press Freedom Day, we will do X instead." Where X might be something like sponsoring independent journalists in areas of the world where press freedom is much more of an issue.
Using pictures of starving children as props to collect our personal information is a new low for them. I can't believe this made it through any sort of approval process.
Nytimes seems to lean more on the one side since they erected a paywall. It is inherent to subscriptions that they create a selfreinforcing bubble by telling subscribers what they want to hear, but other publications are doing better (ft, wsj)
The NYT employs enough disingenuous obfuscators that I will never pay them a penny, nor will I let them collect my information.
Beyond that, what they don't realize is that other news sites will simply report on what is reported in the NYT, and those sites will forever be free. From time to time I will copypaste a NYT url to a single-use non-private FF instance to read (and then immediately clear history) whereby I invariably find that the article only has a few bits that expanded my knowledge. Most of the articles are those few bits of new info followed by summaries of days or months old information that I am already fully aware of. And the same goes for the WaPo.
I understand that we need to support good journalism and I will when I find some really good journalism, without auto-play vids and ridiculous amounts of ad content and making sure the readership on "both sides" is fairly represented. The WaPo has potential but Bezos' quest for all the dollars is ruining it.
What they don't get is that they can't control the information and that information has no intrinsic price, for our primary advantage as human beings is our ability to spread ideas and information from person to person. Their information is going to get aggregated and there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and I'm willing to wait 12 hours for it to get to me secondhand.
The MBAs are digging their own graves every single day and they don't have anyone to blame but themselves. That they have gone all in on the advertisers is only hastening their demise.
The opinion writers are purposely selected to oppose and challenge the viewpoint of the editorial board. Assuming that the editorial board is largely truly correct, there is going to be some degree of intellectual dishonesty among the opposing opinion writers.
I do sympathize with you; I do not enjoy many of their opinions.
Okay, if I grant you that, then I'll ask the followup: What examples of obfuscation do you have? And as a followup to that, why do you interpret it as obfuscation rather than an honest difference in opinion?
If you go to emptywheel.net and search for 'Haberman', you will see the many examples cited by the excellent Ms. Wheeler. There are 18 results. Perhaps they are not all critical of Ms. Haberman, but the one I chose to read (the 3rd, "NYT's Trump Interview: Money for Nothing and Clicks for Free") most certainly was.
Marcy Wheeler deserves a Pulitzer Prize for her work.
I mean obfuscation as in downplaying the seriousness of the crimes of Trump et al. She has been a part of normalizing their deviance and that is the single most effective technique the disingenuous can use to thwart the change we need so badly. It's not Soviet-era propaganda, it's just a nudge away from the truth of how corrupt and amoral our current government is. It pushes us from the righteous anger at their machinations towards "they've done some not-good things"; therein lies a world of difference.
Read Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel.net. Her "potty mouth" is wholly appropriate and her reporting is top-notch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/technology/facebook-alex-...
Now I get they are using platforms which can indiscriminately ban whoever they want. Fine lets say infowars makes their own platform.
Doing okay on their own platform when all of a sudden...
Now common payment processors ban them from being able to receive funding through traditional methods.
When all banks ban you where do you go? Crypto currency of course.
When all common outlets ban you at the same time it doesn't seem much like "World Press Freedom Day" it is more like "Globalization Freedom Day" where you talk against the mainstream opinions and will be silenced. No freedom for you!
Just my 2 cents, not that I endorse infowars I just believe in true and honest discourse and to let the idiots keep talking to be able to show how stupid they are. Banning them only reinforces their audience and empowers them to be more fringe.