An email today from an “independent” news source brags THE CENSORS CAN’T STOP US!
Nonsense. If you were censored, you couldn’t send this email, and your podcasts wouldn’t appear ANYWHERE.
By BASIC DEFINITION, a publisher edits and selects what it will print or display, for commercial reasons. Before 2000 nobody expected to be published by every magazine and newspaper in the world, unless you were a world-famous celebrity.
Broad coverage is expensive. If you want to be seen everywhere in the world, SOMEBODY is paying the expense of broadcasting. When you let Twitter or Facebook pay for worldwide broadcasting, you MUST let them decide whether your writing or art is worth the expense. Not censorship, just business.
If you want to publish without letting someone else select your product, you MUST accept narrower coverage. Before the web there were self-published newsletters via mimeograph or offset, like the Aberree in Enid with a circulation of 1000. You could do better if you had independent wealth or a patron, but a patron (like Buckley for National Review or Omidyar for the Intercept) is a harsher selector than a commercial publisher.
Polistra's Mill 