Media consolidation did not peak in the 90's, media consolidation had different ebbs and flows for its constituent parts, your three examples (television, radio and book publishing) oddly fails to consider newspapers. Amongst other things. I could go on.
Media consolidation did not peak in the 90's, media consolidation had different ebbs and flows for its constituent parts, your three examples (television, radio and book publishing) oddly fails to consider newspapers. Amongst other things. I could go on.
Sure, it's not an exhaustive list. I can't think of any medium or media industry that doesn't suffer from some degree of convergence.
You could argue that there were counter-narrative moves (e.g. Fox news, National Review, Reason) but they seem to get hijacked and incorporated into the Narrative pretty quickly. If not wholly then partially, such that while they have a few dissident voices they play the role of controlled or loyal opposition E.g. some people like Tucker, but acknowledge that Fox News as an institution is mostly controlled - so if Tucker is 10% of Fox, and Fox is 10% of the media, then Tucker is 1% vs. 99% - numbers illustrative only. These ebbs and flows are pretty temporary things.
Contrary to the anti-moderation stance, part of the problem is this libertarian sense of "everyone should be free to talk here about anything they like" - this is an invitation to the opposition to embrace, extend, and exterminate. See Vice magazine vis Gavin McInnes, Tim Pool, and basically everyone else who founded and built Vice. See Reddit.
So welcome "all voices", and the monovoice installs itself and purges dissent. This is already in progress on the second- and third-wave attempts at creating "open platforms". See Parler, ThinkSpot; watch out for MeWe, Minds to drop next.
Stop welcoming "all voices" and take a firm stance against Metatron, and you'll be erased - first they came for Daily Stormer, then Infowars, Gab, etc. Watch out for Bitchute, LBRY, et al.
The first strategy is a proven loser. The second strategy has technical issues at a minimum, but may also be a loser. Either way, mere technical solutions aren't sufficient (see Ethereum: DAO catastrophe - no matter how tight your tech, there are humans behind it and they will break the tech whenever it violates some deeply held principle). The proposed third strategy - force everybody to be an "open platform" - is a recipe for a new FCC. Which is a proven loser.
Media consolidation did not peak in the 90's, media consolidation had different ebbs and flows for its constituent parts, your three examples (television, radio and book publishing) oddly fails to consider newspapers. Amongst other things. I could go on.
Sure, it's not an exhaustive list. I can't think of any medium or media industry that doesn't suffer from some degree of convergence.
You could argue that there were counter-narrative moves (e.g. Fox news, National Review, Reason) but they seem to get hijacked and incorporated into the Narrative pretty quickly. If not wholly then partially, such that while they have a few dissident voices they play the role of controlled or loyal opposition E.g. some people like Tucker, but acknowledge that Fox News as an institution is mostly controlled - so if Tucker is 10% of Fox, and Fox is 10% of the media, then Tucker is 1% vs. 99% - numbers illustrative only. These ebbs and flows are pretty temporary things.
Contrary to the anti-moderation stance, part of the problem is this libertarian sense of "everyone should be free to talk here about anything they like" - this is an invitation to the opposition to embrace, extend, and exterminate. See Vice magazine vis Gavin McInnes, Tim Pool, and basically everyone else who founded and built Vice. See Reddit.
So welcome "all voices", and the monovoice installs itself and purges dissent. This is already in progress on the second- and third-wave attempts at creating "open platforms". See Parler, ThinkSpot; watch out for MeWe, Minds to drop next.
Stop welcoming "all voices" and take a firm stance against Metatron, and you'll be erased - first they came for Daily Stormer, then Infowars, Gab, etc. Watch out for Bitchute, LBRY, et al.
The first strategy is a proven loser. The second strategy has technical issues at a minimum, but may also be a loser. Either way, mere technical solutions aren't sufficient (see Ethereum: DAO catastrophe - no matter how tight your tech, there are humans behind it and they will break the tech whenever it violates some deeply held principle). The proposed third strategy - force everybody to be an "open platform" - is a recipe for a new FCC. Which is a proven loser.
What now?