The Role of Publishers on the World Wide Web (and Gemini Protocol, Among Other Digital Transmission Protocols)
THIS may sound like a banal and obvious thing to say, but publishers' role has long been to inform people, usually at scale (or en masse). With the ascent of mass-printing it was easier to distribute copies of textual material (for the literate) and drawings/illustrations. We're talking about 600 years ago [1, 2]. Later - as in centuries later - came photography, computing, and networking. So the way information got disseminated or "distributed" (not exactly the same thing) changed. The economics and speed changed. People could publish things that many others would see within seconds and it would cost virtually nothing. That's where we are today.
Laws and regulations have not fully caught up. Even the underlying terms are inadequate because mere "tweets" are being referred to as "The Publications" and there's no editorial control, not even basic quality control or fact-checking. Controlling the press isn't the goal, but society benefits when the information sources people get exposed to are at least somewhat reliable. In that sense, social control media is a cesspool that spreads disinformation and hate, in turn fuelling wars and conflict. Put another way, social control media makes the world a worse place for everybody.
We've repeatedly asked people to alter their reading habits. We see many people out there who are glued to their so-called 'smartphones' and receive push notifications (i.e. distractions/interferences) that tell them either worthless stuff (e.g. someone "liked" something) or false stuff that "feels good" or preys on paranoia, tribalism etc. Bad media will result in a bad society. More than 8 years ago Pieter Hintjens published "Why I've Quit Twitter" and we want to quote some portions from that: (in respect to the late Hintjens, who was ahead of his time)
I've loved Twitter, the format and the transparency. Yet over the last year, and months, I've become increasingly concerned about it. We've all seen the divisive arguments over race and gender. These aren't just your usual Internet arguments. These are becoming a civil war and I'm stepping out of it.[...]
The 21st century media is a different animal from old media. Gone are the careful, slow investigations and analyses. In their place we see click races and catch phrases. After a significant court trial such as that of Jian Ghomeshi, they prepare two pieces, one for each outcome. Each is designed to trigger maximum outrage. Seconds after the announcement, the pieces go live, and the tweets flow.
Twitter is the mouthpiece of New Media. It takes outrage and multiplies it a thousand times. Every person in that human chain gets a small kick as they Retweet and Like. There is no responsibility.
And there is no dialog. We get two sides shouting slogans at each other, each seeking for the most outrage they can express without being blocked and banned.
[...]
I'm forced to conclude that Twitter promotes liars. Worse, it promotes those who make a career out of lies. That is, psychopaths. Let me say this again: Twitter promotes psychopaths. It gives them power and status and credibility.
[...]
It has become clear to me that Twitter is a lens that distorts. The economics in this case favor the wrong people: the psychopaths and their followers. It gives them space in which to grow, recruit, and market themselves. By using Twitter, I'm contributing to this.
We know where the politics of extremism takes us. We don't need to go back hundreds of years. Just a few days, to bombs exploding in my home city. Psychopaths produced those bombs, recruited the mules who carried them, and sent them on their way. One more cult of hate, seeking to divide and conquer.
Yes, I'm literally making an equivalence between the digital cults and Daesh. They lie at different points on a scale, yet it is one scale. Saying "all men" and "all white men" has the same intent and effect as saying "all Muslims." It divides, isolates, and creates space for the cult to grow.
Never doubt the harm that psychopaths will inflict on others. It is simply a pragmatic calculation of benefits against risks and costs. Allow cults to grow without sanction, and they will become more aggressive and more destructive.
That was a long time ago. Twitter has since then fostered more right-wing cults, under the banner of "X", which maybe says a lot about its ultimate goal. █