[DoctorZeus]

Those who censor are not the only enemies of the internet. When being monitored by an unaccountable organization capable of all manner of violence, a threat is implied and speech is hindered.

Furthermore, why remove speech when you can just make sure no one ever finds it? Increasingly, most people only access content on the internet via a handful of giant corporations (google, facebook, etc). It is their algorithms that determine what speech we come across. These could easily be leveraged to shape public discourse.

[rhizome]

I can only subscribe to a definition of "enemy of the Internet" if it includes the Huffington Post and Zedo.

[acheron]

Throw in Upworthy and Buzzfeed and I'm with you.

[AsymetricCom]

Too bad nobody cares what you think.

[rhizome]

Zing!

[gizmo686]

>It is their algorithms that determine what speech we come across.

Even without deliberate attempts to manipulate these algorithms to shape public discourse, I wonder what effect the algorithms themselves have. For example, a major feature of these algorithms is to show people what they want to see. The algorithms may determine this based on the individuals history, which already has implications for public discourse, but they could also take into account what similar individuals like.

They could also have a systematic bias. For example, they may consider links from external sites to be a positive indicator. This would prefer internet cultures where each participant has their own site over similar cultures where each participant has an account on a larger site.