Centralized subsidiaries and Steem opportunities
A few days back and quite often over time I have written some things on censorship and often enough on how it is also connected to advertising revenue. It is not that advertising is necessarily bad of course, but when it starts to dictate what is able to be said and who is allowed to say it, that creates a problem.
Advertisers get this power to influence the internet content to a high degree because of the free model that it works on as they are the financiers of the platform through ad buying revenue. Once a website or platform is reliant on that income, the advertisers can increasingly dictate terms and the platforms will not bite the hands that feed them.
A few weeks ago Tumblr started censoring some content on its site and @partiko started backing them up to save them, which is great. Regardless of what people might think of the particular content itself, Steem is a place that touts itself as censorship-free and should use this to the best of its ability.
Out of curiosity I thought I would check something out. Do you know who owns Tumblr? A quick Google search turns up this big heading and a little text:
The little text says that it is owned by Oath Inc.
Revenue sources
In an interview with Nicole Lapin of Bloomberg West on September 7, 2012, David Karp said the site was monetized by advertising. Their first advertising launch started in May 2012 after 16 experimental campaigns.[76] Tumblr made $13 million in revenue in 2012 and hoped to make $100 million in 2013. Tumblr reportedly spent $25 million to fund operations in 2012.[66]In 2013, Tumblr began allowing companies to pay to promote their own posts to a larger audience. Tumblr Head of Sales, Lee Brown, has quoted the average ad purchase on Tumblr to be nearly six figures.[77] Tumblr also allows premium theme templates to be sold for use by blogs.[78]
In July 2016, advertisements were implemented by default across all blogs. Users may opt out, and the service stated that a revenue sharing program would be implemented at a later date.[79]
source
Yes, Oath Inc is a subsidiary of Verizon and has some little subsidiary brands of its own, AOL and Yahoo!
Oath Inc. (stylized as Oath:) is a subsidiary of Verizon Communications[4] that serves as the umbrella company of its digital content subdivisions, including AOL and Yahoo!.[5][6][7] Verizon acquired AOL on June 23, 2015[8][9] and Yahoo!'s operating business on June 13, 2017.[10] Within Oath, AOL and Yahoo! maintain their respective brands.[11]
Tim Armstrong, Oath's former CEO, said the new company name was chosen to convey Oath's commitment to the digital media business.[2] In December 2018 Verizon announced it would write down $4.6B (about half) of the value of the combined AOL/Yahoo purchases.[12] Oath will become Verizon Media Group on January 8, 2019[13][14]
source
I added this quote just for: said the new company name was chosen to convey Oath's commitment to the digital media business.
An oath to the digital media business, Not an oath to their users.
Now, none of this is earth shattering information that is going to change lives perhaps, but it is just a demonstration of what can happen under centralized systems that are monetized almost entirely by advertising revenue. By the way, Verizon's revenue for 2017 was 126 billion. Hard to argue against that.
Here is a list of magazines and sites you might recognize:
| Magazine | Digital |
|---|---|
| Allure | Style |
| Vanity Fair | Flip |
| Brides | Men |
| House & Garden | Brides |
| Glamour | The Scene |
| GQ | Wired News |
| The New Yorker | Stylefinder |
| Tatler | Webmonkey |
| Teen Vogue | Epicurious |
| Vogue | Concierge |
| Wired | Arstechnica |
They are all owned by a single owner, Advance Publications. Ever heard of the company? That is not very interesting and most likely, you don't care too much about bridal magazines or style websites but one thing is quite interesting when I started searching this out of my own curiosity after the Tumblr thing. The other subsidiary they own as majority shareholder is, Reddit. Yes, the site where just about anything goes.
What I wonder is, could the same type of censorship happen on Reddit if for some reason advertisers or some other authority decided it was not in their best interest to support it? Yes, it already happens:
Here is a subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/
At the moment, it seems to largely be the moderators of the subs doing the banning and censoring but with so much going on, who really knows?
When places that were once touted as bastions of free speech and self-expression like Reddit and Tumblr become under the sphere of control of large multinationals and media conglomerates that rely heavily on advertising and political maneuvering for their profit base, there is always going to be the risk of censorship, banning and demonetization. And with the way it is going, it is just a matter of time before all of the centralized platforms cave into the demands.
While many may not care so much about these things, this is actually a competitive advantage for Steem as at least currently (and despite the problems with it), Steem is mostly self-funded and not only that, funded in an increasingly decentralized manner. I don't think people yet understand the importance of this yet but, one day they might as people start trickling in from the Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, Youtube, Patreon sites to take up residence on on of the Steem applications.
Sure, many people might not be happy with some of the content, but applications can be built in ways that they are targeted for and cater to specific users, much like the way posting through Steemit.com doesn't appear on the @steemhunt interface. Yes, it all resides on the same blockchain, but we don't have to view everything on the chain.
While 2018 might have been the year for demonetization and deplatforming, 2019 might be the year of censorship resistance and the protection of freedom of speech. Not only does Steem empower users, it gives the ability for anyone to leverage the technology and build their own platform that protects their content of their own community.
One of the projects I think is going to become very important in the future is @tokenbb being developed by @cryptoctopus as I think that might be a landing place for disenfranchised communities to gather, talk freely and then spin-off their own ideas into projects and applications. It will also be a place where they will be able to connect with the developers and established communities that could help them.
Of course, the biggest factor that protects Steem is that it is self-funded and once large enough would be self-perpetuating to some degree. Anyone can take a little piece of ownership of the blockchain to protect it and the more people that have a piece (even a small piece), the safer and more stable it becomes. 10 million accounts with 3 Steem each protects 10% of the chain and that number would take over half the supply that currently resides on exchanges.
In a very real sense, the people who are on Steem and hold Steem are making sure that there is a home for people to turn to when they lose control over what they never actually held. Content on the other platforms is much like owning Bitcoin, unless you have the keys, it isn't yours.
While people are worried about the price of Steem or the numbers of users here, what we should really be looking at is what competitive advantages we have on Steem and how we can continually improve the ecosystem with apps and interfaces to cater for all kinds of communities. Rather than worrying about Steem itself, we need to work out what Steem actually is and, what it is capable of, and how it can offer solutions to users at all levels.
In my view, it is capable of much, much more than it is currently used for and how most people visualize it.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
I've never really put that much thought into censorship resistance and the protection of freedom of speech, probably cause I don't feel my content goes anywhere close to any particular 'boundaries'. Interesting stuff though, as usual, the one big cheese at the top of all these other heavyweights.
Is it a good thing that some of our Witnesses stay anon?
I think so and that some of them have distributed servers across continents like @gtg has.
I was thinking more sinister than that, should probably be quiet again :)
Censorship and free speech quickly become "slippery slopes."
Because what are they really, and who is doing the asking?
A good friend of ours — who recently moved away after 12 years in our town — is a free speech advocate of some note; he ran into some trouble with our local city council because his free speech display (which he'd put up downtown, daily) was thought to offend the tourists and the city depends heavily on tourist revenues to fill its coffers.
That's one kind of censorship, when he was prevented from putting up his displays. Or rather, an ordinance was passed so that nobody could have a public display anywhere above a certain size. This was all done — although never expressed as such — in the interest of providing a more "sanitized" experience for visitors.
Advertising Censorship often misses the mark because the concern is misdirected to whether or not the advertiser is offended, rather than to whether the advertiser's customers are offended.
But censorship and free speech... how "free" should it be? Should I be allowed to promote abducting babies, cutting the tops of their heads off and eating their still warm brains with a squeeze of lemon juice, like it were a particularly perverse oyster? Should that be "protected?" Where do we draw lines, and do we draw lines?
My point is that it's easy for us to sit here and postulate from our well-educated intellectual ivory towers, far removed from the horrific sociopathy that drives some people through life. And I'm not trying to be trollish, critical or confrontational here... just playing devil's advocate.
I think there is another side to the and that is the responsibility of speech. Should you be allowed to promote it? yes. Would you considering the potential ramifications? probably not. I don't see free speech as free of consequence or response.
Personally, I would rather sociopath express bad views openly than find other channels in the same way that I prefer racists to be openly racist rather than have a facade of political correctness. Censoring bad ideas doesn't mean they go away and more often than not, they fester.
100% completely free, no exceptions, until the point of actually calling for actions that are violent and harmful.
What you gave is actually a perfect example because the idea alone is undeniably grotesquely offensive, but still nothing more than an idea. You did not credibly threaten to do that or demand that others do it. If you did, I suppose figuring out how credible it is would still be a judgement call - but the judgement is "credible threat" or no, not "how offensive?"
In Hollywood, there are actually parties catered with "artistic" food and live actors that simulate cannibalism - essentially doing just what you put up as an example. But people are shamed and shunned for saying things like "abortion kills a baby, so maybe it isn't something to be proud of."
There can be social consequences to both things. Even financial consequences - I mean those mega companies are free to advertise and to select content for their customers (who are actually the advertisers). But as far as the law goes, there is ultimately no way to clearly draw the line on speech at any point between "call to action" and "Dear Leader knows what is best for us." Actions are actions. Words are simply the representation of thoughts.
Posted using Partiko Android
The censorship is something I have tried to remind people of when they suddenly go all pro advertising. If a blogger wants ads there is nothing to stop him, all the apps advertise themselves, there is nothing stopping partiko or esteem from adding in to there app byline.
example: Posted using Partiko Android - Visit Amazon.com for 10% off in mens wear.
Or whatever other little line and link the app would want to add. The devs at steem have finally figured out how to pin a post to the top of the feed page, and to add pinned post to the white space to the right. Imagine one day playboy having a pinned ad to the right, Of course it would be in good taste, but still link to their pages. (playboy used because of the free speech issue, and yes I know it was 'The People vs. Larry Flynt')
All steem or steemit or an app would need to do is shoot down any threats from advertisers to censor any type of speech. Right now the internet thinks they need the advertisers, they don't. If Time magazine said block that story and I'll advertise on your site, well they are the ones asking to advertise on your site, you did not ask them to advertise on your site, and all the site would have to do is tell Time thank you for your offer, but the story stays, and we will put your offer out there for others to advertise for the same price.
Interfaces can do as they please but I don't think the blockchain development should be funded by advertising.
Took them long enough :D
When recession hits, desperation and fear follow. This is the best time to hook in and take more control for those with the means and will.
yes quite troubling - #censorship monkeys- this is also true w/ radio stations and many stores - in each case all owned by just one corporation. The illusion of choice in a post '1984' Orwellian world @angrytwin
There was a documentary I watched once that tied nearly all food production in the US to something like 6 companies. Crazy.
Dear @tarazkp
Yet another great publication. You captured my attention from the very beginning.
STEEM is surely censorship-free as a blockchain. But I seriously cannot see why so many people see Steemit or any other front-ends as a resistent to censorship.
Imagine scenario: Someone way more resourceful than me would decide to flag my content. I may be okey, because my reputation is already high and my voting power is quite decent. But I could still be sent into oblivion.
Those who have little SP and just starting their journey here, will have it much harder. To flag them down to the point that noone sees their content will be very real threat.
So at the end, we have censorship immune blockchain. But it doesnt change much if front-ends will not be displaying all records and you can be muted very easily.
What do you think?
Yours
Piotr
Flags aren't censorship in my opinion and even if an account is obliterated, it doesn't stop them from posting. Nor does it stop Steem content being shared in other places.
The front ends could also play around with the show/hide too if they wanted.
The anti censorship thing really is a major advantage steem does have!
If Patreon could happen on steem... now that really would be something!
If Patreon could happen on steem... now that really would be something!
It would be indeed, even if only leveraging the free transaction side.
Excellent points. I knew that the idea of advertising as revenue for Steemit (in as far as they do all the blockchain development, as I believe they do) felt wrong to me, but I couldn't have said why.
It's bothered nee a bit to see people referring to ads as necessary because that's how it's always been done - granted, it's a proven source of revenue but it's also been demonstrated to lead to these problems of censorship. Steem really is a different way of doing things, and I certainly hope it becomes the cure (or at least part of the treatment) for this recent plague of censorship.
Posted using Partiko Android
I hadn’t thought about this and given all the mention for Steemit to run adds I guee it would be somewhat counterproductive in the long run to do so given the possibilities of growing delendent on the ad model.
Posted using Partiko iOS
This post has been included in today's SOS Daily News - a digest of all you need to know about the State of Steem.
Editor of the The State of Steem SoS Daily News.
Promoter of The State of Steem SoS Weekly Forums.
Editor of the weekly listing of steem radio shows, podcasts & social broadcasts.
Founder of the A Dollar A Day charitable giving project.
It's fair to say once the "Moral Majority" led boycotts I remember from early 80's had some effect advertising as a way to support media production had itself a problem. Social media's virality has gives often no more than a few dozen activists, working from Saul Alinsky's playbook, the ability to appear much bigger than they really are.
The entire model of Advertising supported media is creaking, couple that with the dawning realisation that online advertising, while absolutely brilliant for immediate needs small local stuff like Pizza or plumbing, is absolutely dreadful at brand building. The levels of fraud are through the roof and the two entities making nearly all the money today are Google/Facebook. There's a crash coming. Those of us who turn away from advertising support will survive.