3 ms·

You can get all of that by visiting another website. You don't need to go to Facebook or Twitter to get that. I don't get why people feel the need for Faceboo

You can get all of that by visiting another website. You don't need to go to Facebook or Twitter to get that. I don't get why people feel the need for Facebook or Twitter need to host those items on their own servers? Do people not realize that these are private companies with editorial discretion?

vasaulys 10y ago
but increasingly, the internet for people is facebook and Twitterand and Instagram, etc. The issue is that its hard to get the message out with a few brands dominating the internets. How will one get the message out about a website if she or he couldn't blog about it on a platform like Twitter or Facebook? p.s. I might be reading you wrong here
alanwatts 10y ago
Let's follow that logic: the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies (i.e. Comcast), so shouldn't Comcast be able to censor and throttle anything that goes over their network?
- mozumder 10y ago
  Infrastructure isn't a free market. If it were, there would be a hundred different cable lines hanging outside your house, like what happened in the 1800's. So, in order to prevent that situation, we allow one company a monopoly on the market. In exchange, that company is forced to follow common carrier rules, such as not interfering with speech.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    I think the point here is that Twitter and Facebook increasingly look like a piece of infrastructure - it's hard to reach the general population without them, it's hard to opt out of using them, etc.
  - wfo 10y ago
    An entrenched-monopoly dominating an industry primarily controlled by network effects isn't really a free market either, free markets don't exist outside of college econ textbooks. We all agree to use the same company for infrastructure, just like we all agree to use the same couple of companies for social media. It's just when the social media companies do things that are bad people pop up and say "they are private companies in a free market they can do whatever they want" because these companies are new and cable companies are old.
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    The reason Comcast is a monopoly is because if it wasn't, 21rst century networks would be like 19th century networks? Nice try, Comcast.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
I agree with you that these are private companies which can, rightfully, facilitate or inhibit conversation or speech in anyway they desire: I wouldn't have it any other way. And I don't agree with the leanings of Facebook & Twitter management. Having said that, their right to exercise editorial controls on their platforms does not mean they are somehow above criticism when they elect to do so in stupid ways. As the original comment in this thread suggested their moves in regard to speech are short-sighted and detrimental to the overall health of society, especially given the pervasiveness of use of these platforms. Still, I can recognize their right, and call them out on their foolishness, at the same time. I only cross the line when I demand force to be used against them (meaning a law written to force their hands); then I would be in the wrong. They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard. I would argue that anyone who takes it upon themselves to become the central hub for most discourse (or to organize the world's information) has an implied responsibility to act as a good steward of the empire they seek to control. We have no obligation as members of the public to accept whatever controls a land-grabbing (I use this term here non-judgmentally) empire builder wishes to impose; they sought to turn us into members of their empires, so we should at least have the right to demand they behave equitably, and perhaps even beneficently.
  - sbuttgereit 10y ago
    What is the source of this implied responsibility? What is the reason behind it? We might hope that they would do the right thing, but our desire doesn't bind them to deliver our wishes to us... even if it is in their best interest to do so. When we use a Facebook or a Twitter, we (the public) accept the product they offer. True enough, if we find out we don't like the deal we can threaten to walk away if there is no change. But these companies don't have a responsibility, implied or otherwise, to better us, cater to any of us, or fulfill someone's vision of social good. It would be nice if they delivered on these things (of course my vision of what that means) but it is not their responsibility to do so. If I don't like that with sufficient intensity, my one valid recourse is stop using their services.
ecobiker 10y ago
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease". I have heard far many times for my liking that Apple/Facebook/Twitter/Google...etc are private companies and they can do whatever they want as an argument. The same goes for products that are free. It doesn't automatically mean that we lose the right to criticize. It's necessary and healthy to raise objections and demand features that we'd like to have. It's in these companies' own best interests to listen to their customers and make decisions with their customers in mind (too). Even if these companies don't take heed, someone else would. May be another company would build something we are asking for. May be another social media company could pop up with a constitution like protection of freedom of speech. The difference is that nobody is asking for these companies to be banned or to cease operations. They are free to do what they want and we are free to ask what we want.

vasaulys 10y ago

but increasingly, the internet for people is facebook and Twitterand and Instagram, etc. The issue is that its hard to get the message out with a few brands dominating the internets. How will one get the message out about a website if she or he couldn't blog about it on a platform like Twitter or Facebook? p.s. I might be reading you wrong here

alanwatts 10y ago

Let's follow that logic: the internet infrastructure is owned by private companies (i.e. Comcast), so shouldn't Comcast be able to censor and throttle anything that goes over their network?

mozumder 10y ago
Infrastructure isn't a free market. If it were, there would be a hundred different cable lines hanging outside your house, like what happened in the 1800's. So, in order to prevent that situation, we allow one company a monopoly on the market. In exchange, that company is forced to follow common carrier rules, such as not interfering with speech.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think the point here is that Twitter and Facebook increasingly look like a piece of infrastructure - it's hard to reach the general population without them, it's hard to opt out of using them, etc.
- wfo 10y ago
  An entrenched-monopoly dominating an industry primarily controlled by network effects isn't really a free market either, free markets don't exist outside of college econ textbooks. We all agree to use the same company for infrastructure, just like we all agree to use the same couple of companies for social media. It's just when the social media companies do things that are bad people pop up and say "they are private companies in a free market they can do whatever they want" because these companies are new and cable companies are old.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  The reason Comcast is a monopoly is because if it wasn't, 21rst century networks would be like 19th century networks? Nice try, Comcast.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

I agree with you that these are private companies which can, rightfully, facilitate or inhibit conversation or speech in anyway they desire: I wouldn't have it any other way. And I don't agree with the leanings of Facebook & Twitter management. Having said that, their right to exercise editorial controls on their platforms does not mean they are somehow above criticism when they elect to do so in stupid ways. As the original comment in this thread suggested their moves in regard to speech are short-sighted and detrimental to the overall health of society, especially given the pervasiveness of use of these platforms. Still, I can recognize their right, and call them out on their foolishness, at the same time. I only cross the line when I demand force to be used against them (meaning a law written to force their hands); then I would be in the wrong. They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard.

nitrogen 10y ago
They don't have a responsibility to further discourse and I don't have a responsibility to hold my tongue when they fail in this regard. I would argue that anyone who takes it upon themselves to become the central hub for most discourse (or to organize the world's information) has an implied responsibility to act as a good steward of the empire they seek to control. We have no obligation as members of the public to accept whatever controls a land-grabbing (I use this term here non-judgmentally) empire builder wishes to impose; they sought to turn us into members of their empires, so we should at least have the right to demand they behave equitably, and perhaps even beneficently.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  What is the source of this implied responsibility? What is the reason behind it? We might hope that they would do the right thing, but our desire doesn't bind them to deliver our wishes to us... even if it is in their best interest to do so. When we use a Facebook or a Twitter, we (the public) accept the product they offer. True enough, if we find out we don't like the deal we can threaten to walk away if there is no change. But these companies don't have a responsibility, implied or otherwise, to better us, cater to any of us, or fulfill someone's vision of social good. It would be nice if they delivered on these things (of course my vision of what that means) but it is not their responsibility to do so. If I don't like that with sufficient intensity, my one valid recourse is stop using their services.

ecobiker 10y ago

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease". I have heard far many times for my liking that Apple/Facebook/Twitter/Google...etc are private companies and they can do whatever they want as an argument. The same goes for products that are free. It doesn't automatically mean that we lose the right to criticize. It's necessary and healthy to raise objections and demand features that we'd like to have. It's in these companies' own best interests to listen to their customers and make decisions with their customers in mind (too). Even if these companies don't take heed, someone else would. May be another company would build something we are asking for. May be another social media company could pop up with a constitution like protection of freedom of speech. The difference is that nobody is asking for these companies to be banned or to cease operations. They are free to do what they want and we are free to ask what we want.