7 ms·

Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?

by awinder 10y ago

shabda 10y ago
Because it is becoming the predominant way people consume media. If it were only used by 10% of its current use, it shouldn't be, but it current levels it should. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".
- nine_k 10y ago
  Referencing Stalin in a media freedom context is, well, so liberal.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Stalin was quoting Napoleon. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
paganel 10y ago
Facebook has become a de-facto political "agora" for the politicians and high-Government officials from my country (I live in Eastern Europe). More exactly, that's where now they first express their views on current political, social and economics affairs affecting my country. Nowadays I would say that most of the important stuff first gets posted on FB, and only then it gets re-published by the local media (whatever it's left of it at this point). So, even if I would want to "get off" FB and decide to ignore it completely then I would just have an "inferior" experience as a citizen of my country, i.e. I would not have first-hand account on what's shaping the things around me. It's not that I like what Facebook has become, but there's nothing that I can do to change it at this point.
- wyager 10y ago
  So once your platform gets popular enough, the government can tell you what to do with it? Why? It's not Facebook's fault that politicians started using it.
  - sitkack 10y ago
    Yes.
  - zdkl 10y ago
    It's astounding so many people defend variants of 'power to the mighty'. Are you so naive you believe you are one of the mighty?
    - wyager 10y ago
      Huh? What are you talking about? I'm defending the right of everyone to be free of excessive government interference, whether it's an individual or a popular company.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        But you're totally ok with people having no right to be free of corporate interference?
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        It's never clear, with these arguments, why being oppressed by a corporation is better than being oppressed by a government.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    They can tell you what to do with it and not use it too. This is the way it should be. Think of the harm that can be done in all sorts of abusive ways if there was no regulation of sites and services.
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    Yes. You become a medium of public discourse with network effects. That seems perfectly fine to regulate.
    - wyager 10y ago
      I disagree that anything on Facebook is "public" in the sense of "public ownership". Facebook is a private platform. Just because things are (maybe) publicly visible doesn't mean they're public property. Should the government be able to force people to put up or take down posters in public-facing Windows?
pjc50 10y ago
.. both of which are subject to different kinds of government regulation. But Facebook is definitely a medium. In some ways like a telecom or transit operator.
- awinder 10y ago
  Sure, but they're regulated differently, and the parent seemed to assume it should be regulated as a media outlet
- kefka 10y ago
  There's a simple path to change things here. Start criminally charging Facebook for every criminal act they fail to remove. If they're playing the censor, then they need to be punished when they fail in that role. The other choice, is not to censor anything, other than by the requirements of the law. Like the telephone system does.
red_admiral 10y ago
Facebook arguably has a monopoly position in the way that your local mall, movie theatre or newspaper does not. If I don't like the Times, I can read the Guardian instead. If I don't like what's on at one cinema, I can go to another (granted this may be harder in a small town with only one). Of course I can close my facebook account and move to diaspora, but then I'd lose everything from keeping in touch with my friends' latest accomplishments to the schedule of my local hiking club. I already find if I'm away hiking for a weekend without internet access and couldn't be bothered to catch up on facebook on Monday morning because there's already a pile of e-mails to deal with, at coffee break it's like I've missed some important social information that everyone else knows, because team member A has done something and posted about it on facebook and everyone else has been liking and commenting on it, and everyone expects you to be up to date with this. Without a facebook account you may as well wear a badge that says "antisocial". I personally think governments should regulate media outlets in proportion to their influence on people's lives. FB is the new IE.
- amscanne 10y ago
  TIL that I wear an antisocial badge. It's perfectly possible to be happy and healthy without a Facebook account. You might lose out on one particular kind of "social" connection, but that doesn't mean you lose actual social connections. You just catch up with people in person, via telephone, via email, via chat, or a million other ways. Personally, I don't really find the "social" information Facebook has to offer all that valuable. It's just a stream of trivia from extended not-really-friends.
  - visarga 10y ago
    The parent poster just said that he felt like he missed on some important communication that he was expected to have been aware of. It's not possible to be happy without FB, it's not possible to be happy with FB either.
    - wonder_er 10y ago
      It is so possible to be happy without FB. Just decide your life is fine, despite the occasional time lags in you discovering certain information. FWIW, I deleted my FB account months ago, and my quality of life has gone up. If someone expects me to be available via FB, I give them my email address.
dredmorbius 10y ago
How might a government or society have an interest in, say, the content carried by a private radio station? What possible interest might there be? http://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html http://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html

Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?

by awinder 10y ago

Why is Facebook a media outlet as opposed to, say, a private gathering place like a mall or movie theatre?

Because it is becoming the predominant way people consume media. If it were only used by 10% of its current use, it shouldn't be, but it current levels it should. As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".

nine_k 10y ago
Referencing Stalin in a media freedom context is, well, so liberal.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Stalin was quoting Napoleon. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

paganel 10y ago

Facebook has become a de-facto political "agora" for the politicians and high-Government officials from my country (I live in Eastern Europe). More exactly, that's where now they first express their views on current political, social and economics affairs affecting my country. Nowadays I would say that most of the important stuff first gets posted on FB, and only then it gets re-published by the local media (whatever it's left of it at this point). So, even if I would want to "get off" FB and decide to ignore it completely then I would just have an "inferior" experience as a citizen of my country, i.e. I would not have first-hand account on what's shaping the things around me. It's not that I like what Facebook has become, but there's nothing that I can do to change it at this point.

wyager 10y ago
So once your platform gets popular enough, the government can tell you what to do with it? Why? It's not Facebook's fault that politicians started using it.
- sitkack 10y ago
  Yes.
- zdkl 10y ago
  It's astounding so many people defend variants of 'power to the mighty'. Are you so naive you believe you are one of the mighty?
  - wyager 10y ago
    Huh? What are you talking about? I'm defending the right of everyone to be free of excessive government interference, whether it's an individual or a popular company.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      But you're totally ok with people having no right to be free of corporate interference?
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      It's never clear, with these arguments, why being oppressed by a corporation is better than being oppressed by a government.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  They can tell you what to do with it and not use it too. This is the way it should be. Think of the harm that can be done in all sorts of abusive ways if there was no regulation of sites and services.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  Yes. You become a medium of public discourse with network effects. That seems perfectly fine to regulate.
  - wyager 10y ago
    I disagree that anything on Facebook is "public" in the sense of "public ownership". Facebook is a private platform. Just because things are (maybe) publicly visible doesn't mean they're public property. Should the government be able to force people to put up or take down posters in public-facing Windows?

pjc50 10y ago

.. both of which are subject to different kinds of government regulation. But Facebook is definitely a medium. In some ways like a telecom or transit operator.

awinder 10y ago
Sure, but they're regulated differently, and the parent seemed to assume it should be regulated as a media outlet
kefka 10y ago
There's a simple path to change things here. Start criminally charging Facebook for every criminal act they fail to remove. If they're playing the censor, then they need to be punished when they fail in that role. The other choice, is not to censor anything, other than by the requirements of the law. Like the telephone system does.

red_admiral 10y ago

Facebook arguably has a monopoly position in the way that your local mall, movie theatre or newspaper does not. If I don't like the Times, I can read the Guardian instead. If I don't like what's on at one cinema, I can go to another (granted this may be harder in a small town with only one). Of course I can close my facebook account and move to diaspora, but then I'd lose everything from keeping in touch with my friends' latest accomplishments to the schedule of my local hiking club. I already find if I'm away hiking for a weekend without internet access and couldn't be bothered to catch up on facebook on Monday morning because there's already a pile of e-mails to deal with, at coffee break it's like I've missed some important social information that everyone else knows, because team member A has done something and posted about it on facebook and everyone else has been liking and commenting on it, and everyone expects you to be up to date with this. Without a facebook account you may as well wear a badge that says "antisocial". I personally think governments should regulate media outlets in proportion to their influence on people's lives. FB is the new IE.

amscanne 10y ago
TIL that I wear an antisocial badge. It's perfectly possible to be happy and healthy without a Facebook account. You might lose out on one particular kind of "social" connection, but that doesn't mean you lose actual social connections. You just catch up with people in person, via telephone, via email, via chat, or a million other ways. Personally, I don't really find the "social" information Facebook has to offer all that valuable. It's just a stream of trivia from extended not-really-friends.
- visarga 10y ago
  The parent poster just said that he felt like he missed on some important communication that he was expected to have been aware of. It's not possible to be happy without FB, it's not possible to be happy with FB either.
  - wonder_er 10y ago
    It is so possible to be happy without FB. Just decide your life is fine, despite the occasional time lags in you discovering certain information. FWIW, I deleted my FB account months ago, and my quality of life has gone up. If someone expects me to be available via FB, I give them my email address.

dredmorbius 10y ago

How might a government or society have an interest in, say, the content carried by a private radio station? What possible interest might there be? http://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html http://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html