So the author prefers a tech world centered on the keyboard rather than the screen. I guess I can see why, since the author wrote a terminal-based browser. But I think the vast majority moved away from terminal-based browsers for a reason
Signal to noise on modern web is frog boiling[1]. RSS, newsboat, w3m, mpv on an old thinkpad - i'm not advocating going full Stallman, or that everyone should do it - but when i want to get to do things with intention its a lovely set-up for me.
Its like having an off-grid cabin at weekends. I work all day on point and click interfaces, after work, i strip back and focus on what matters.
> To refute this, one must show that the "critical mass theory" is not significant and that driver attentiveness to cyclists is not a function of the number of cyclists.
Not quite. The critical mass theory could be real and significant, and ridership could drop from a helmet mandate, but the question is how it stacks against the reduction of head injuries from the helmet mandate
Monopolies don't need to have all the market share, there just needs to be no viable substitutes. And a social network that is tiny with barely any content, is not a viable substitute. Another characteristic is high barriers to entry, which for social networks, includes overcoming the network effect as well as dealing with Cloudflare, Mastercard, etc. It doesn't matter if there are work arounds, if the cost of these workarounds is high, it's a monopoly.
> The civil rights movement didn’t boo hoo that things were “hard to work around”.
I'm quite confident that the civil rights movement did complain that things were hard to work around. That didn't stop the movement of course. Just like people are still fighting the big tech monopoly, despite the uphill battle
> you probably don't want an app on your store that allows any user to stumble onto an uncensored video of people getting decapitated.
Google Chrome, Firefox, and Safari will all allow any user to stumble onto those videos. People who use browsers know the risk. And the people who use LBRY also know the risk.
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. How did you find out that lbry was largely uncensored and unmoderated?
If you showed lbry to your parents, what would they think? My bet is they'd think it is or is like YouTube. I doubt very seriously that any random person just finding out about lbry would expect to find snuff videos when they're searching for anything.
Even on an open browser, you just don't randomly bump into extreme shit on the same scale of lbry. I've run into such things maybe a dozen or so times in the decades I've been online, and then several dozen times in the year or two I used lbry.
The scale is different, and the expectation is different. People understand and expect that a browser can show you anything, and we've had parental controls on browsers for decades. Also, browsers don't host and distribute content, they allow you to access anything from anyone, and you generally have to make a conscious effort to find something.
Lbry hosts and distributes extreme content, with no real intention to moderate it. In addition, it's extremely common to accidentally run into something like a snuff video or straight up porn.
Lbry could moderate this kind of thing on their service, a browser cannot moderate the entire internet. That's what Apple is objecting to.
I and other users don't expect LBRY to be moderated, so it's current state falls in line with those expectations. Maybe those with other expectations should change them. Not everything needs to be like Youtube.
And Safari can absolutely moderate content if it wanted to. Apple could easily add domain blacklists, or even a whitelist. But they choose not to because it would break expectations of what a browser should be. And clearly for LBRY, moderating the way Apple wants would break the expectations of the users and developers of LBRY.
>Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people
How are they different?
You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor.
Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor.
Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else. I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech.
>You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor.
Would it? If you don't agree, you should not listen. According to your view, if I told you to stop commenting on HN you would stop? I'm not forcing you to do anything.
>Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor.
The theater is not the one being censored here but the one censoring. When you do it to yourself, you are both the censor and being censored.
>Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else.
Me telling you my opionin is not an external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. Or, it is, but only in the hope that you yourself change your mind. I can't force you to do anything. This is known as a discussion:
>the activity in which people talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions[0]
>I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech.
Back to the "shouldn't be protected" argument? We aren't talking about a matter of law but of right and wrong. The law provides us a space to discuss what that means for ourselves. If people use that power to shut others down that's wrong but the most we can do is point out to those people that they are wrong.
Personally I would consider neither of those examples as censorship. Unless the theater in your second example was the only theater in the world. When I said platform, I probably should have clarified that I meant "big platform".
There is still a difference though. With self correction, you make the choice. With platform censorship, the platform makes the choice for you. There may be an external force in both cases, but in the former case you can still choose to ignore it.
> The augment put forth is partly that an app store / hub not accepting all possible apps is a form of censorship,
I believe they are saying that a _monopolistic_ app store that doesn't accept all apps is a form of censorship. And then the article (along with some comments in this thread) explain how Google Play and Apple App Store are monopolistic
