48 ms·

Dear Mark Zuckerberg: Democracy is not a Facebook focus group

260 points by ntnsndr 10y ago

fleitz 10y ago
Get over it, FB is a platform that was used more successfully by one candidate over the other. It's like changing the mail system because one candidate bothered to hire copywriters
- ljk 10y ago
  except other issues on the FB platform like censorship
  - fleitz 10y ago
    You feel that FB was censoring in a way that tilted the election for Trump?
    - ljk 10y ago
      no, i was referring to the "mail system" analogy
wccrawford 10y ago
>As recently as just after the U.S. elections in November, he attempted to dodge responsibility for Facebook’s role in shaping the outcome. Now, three months later, he is ready to take charge of the security, accuracy and diversity of how the world shares information. And he wants our help. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
- m3rc 10y ago
  Those aren't the only decisions you have. Pretending you don't have any say in what's going on and then stepping in and pulling... whatever it is that he's trying to do now, are both not helpful.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Damned if you do nothing, and then damned if what you do is a transparent and empty attempt to evade anything like personal or corporate responsibility going forward. Especially damned if you're a very well known quantity, and what is known about you is less than flattering. Doesn't trip off the tongue quite so nicely, but it has the benefit of being true.
  - imw 10y ago
    Damn. Well said.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Third option: not participating in the news flow at all.
  - supernumerary 10y ago
    This is a smart idea. Intro of NewsFeed was heavily protested at inception... probably because we don't like it when our transitional objects interject reality: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.html https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Not really possible, unless you mean shutting down Facebook completely. They could get rid of the trending section, but I think people directly posting and sharing random bullshit is a more significant and difficult problem.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      FB involving themselves in what people post to each other is the greater problem. FB would absolutely not have to shut down if they refrained from making business decisions based on what you post.
- fleitz 10y ago
  Why is Zuckerberg / FB responsible for presenting only views you agree with to his audience? If you don't like someone's ideas make better ones. It's not zuckerbergs fault people liked one persons ideas over another.
dsschnau 10y ago
heh. Zuck doesn't give a fuck
dingo_bat 10y ago
Facebook should just say "Content owned by poster." and call it a day. Trying to push or censor/hide any content based on what's in it or who posted it is wrong, IMO. Taking sides in a political issue has never been helpful to any company in the long-term.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  ...Except that part of their potential business model has always been, "Content owned by us, now that you posted it."
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    Exactly. And publishing any article that can be defined as hate speech is an offense in Germany and The Netherlands. Don't know about other countries.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      You know, I didn't even consider that. It isn't a crime in the US, but I imagine that it is in the UK and many other countries.
      - idiot_stick 10y ago
        >It isn't a crime in the US, but I imagine that it is in the UK and many other countries. Yes, the US truly is one of the last bastions of free speech, believe it or not. Many other countries, including my own, can imprison you for things you say.
        spiderfarmer 10y ago
        In my country they also look at the intent of the law. The intent of this law is to prevent you from rallying one group of people to feel superior over another group of people, over racial, sexual, religious and other issues. You can still say these things in private without repercussions.
fullshark 10y ago
> This is a noble ambition, but perhaps more noble, and certainly more democratic, would be to distribute that stock among the people who made it valuable in the first place: Facebook’s users. This piece is all over the place, but this is the thesis I'd say. The actual implementation of this seems doomed to fail, writer likely doesn't believe this anyway and wants to argue that Zuckerberg doesn't really care about democracy I'd guess.
eatbitseveryday 10y ago
How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time? Democracy should exist with the government, not with corporations.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Devil's Advocate: The Federalist Papers required the use of privately owned printing presses for large-scale distribution. I'm not sure we can ever disentangle corporations from democracy, especially in America.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    the federalist papers were not an official act of government. they were anonymously published (these days we would call it a "leak") think pieces designed to tilt elite opinion. we look upon them sympathetically because we agree with many of the positions espoused in the papers, but make no mistake, the publishing of the federalist papers was electioneering.
    - ColanR 10y ago
      Technically, there were also the Anti-Federalist papers - and together, they were a public debate over what the new Democratic Constitutional Republic (more or less) should look like. Also, yes, they were trying to garner support and interest. Probably.
- mtrn 10y ago
  > How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time? I do not use FB and I still have friends, family, fun and a happy life.
- vowelless 10y ago
  I deleted my account a month ago. No regrets.
- acchow 10y ago
  You want government-owned media? Democracy cannot exist without a free press.
supernumerary 10y ago
With these FB/MZ take-downs can you try and square it's instrumentality in mass movements (good and bad) first before skewering it as a voracious Bobbit Worm in the aquarium we like to call democracy ... Also we all have massive agency to do whatever we want on it. This should be squared away before scapegoating it like this.
- imw 10y ago
  You have the appearance of agency. That agency is mediated and curtailed by a profit-motivated intermediary that ultimately has almost total control.
yeukhon 10y ago
> In a country with functioning democracy, citizens vote responsibly because they know they will own the consequences if they don’t. I never heard gerrymandering until after the 2016 election. It is scary how minority can still win the district election. So first fix that hole, and even getting rid of Electoral College, then we can talk about vote's value. Cooperative platform seems to be a thing for this journalist. My reading is some socialism in this writing. > would be to distribute that stock among the people who made it valuable in the first place: Facebook’s users. Like the British retailer John Lewis Partnership did for its employees, the stock could be held in a trust that users directly control and have the opportunity to benefit from. I am going to say this is tough to do. Employee != users. Granted, there are fake accounts, how do you deal with that? You can't have a fake employee because that's a fraud. > On the other hand, users might then have at least a seat in the boardroom when decisions are being made about what to do with their valuable, personal data now locked up in the platform. Same argument above. Users can actually participate if they purchase stocks, but sure the entry cost is high. I completely agree users should have influence in how a company runs and creates product, i.e. this is how a successful business should be, listen to users and take in the good advice. Let us supposed FB allows users to vote on features and how Facebook should run, then some malicious organization could create a lot of fake accounts to influence the outcome. Are we going to now required everyone to give out passport / proper government ID and verify our online status? Otherwise, how can you take these voting seriously? This is exactly what driving people away from Facebook the fact so many people are paranoid about their online privacy and identity. This is different from taking a user survey and asking WOULD YOU LIKE. Internet is fighting against fake news. Until there is a solid solution, sorry, it's just idealism. The ideas are exciting but please give me a concrete implementation.
- wang_li 10y ago
  Gerrymandering is required by the voting rights act. An redistricting that changes the racial make up of a district can be challenged in court. So when demographics change over the decades, the districts have to be drawn in more and more convoluted ways so as to not disenfranchise a racial minority.
  - 10y ago
endswapper 10y ago
The author, disappointingly, seems to present Zuckerberg's "Building Global Community," covered in vaseline to advance his own political agenda. Zuckerberg is clearly talking about community and not governance. Additionally, throwing around terms like "authoritarianism", "feudal" and "dictator" does nothing to engage Zuckerberg's points, or advance his own agenda. Rather, it simply clouds the conversation with personal assumptions, judgments, attacks, etc. I'm old enough to remember when Bill Gates was depicted as a villain on a daily basis. This appears to have a similar tone. Today, I'm not sure we could have a better fiduciary than Bill Gates through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Had he distributed ownership of Microsoft in a way similar to what the author suggests of Facebook the Global Community would have lost out, big league[0]. [0] NB: Trumpism intentional for the sake of humor.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > covered in vaseline I am fascinated by this expression. What on Earth does this mean?
  - endswapper 10y ago
    He's not representing MZ's post clearly, i.e. vaseline on a lens.
thomasahle 10y ago
The relevant part of "Building Global Community" https://www.facebook.com/notes/10154544292806634/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/10154544292806634/ > Our society will reflect our collective values only if we engage in the civic process and participate in self-governance. There are two distinct types of social infrastructure that must be built: > The first encourages engagement in existing political processes: voting, engaging with issues and representatives, speaking out, and sometimes organizing. Only through dramatically greater engagement can we ensure these political processes reflect our values. > The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community governance might work at scale. > The starting point for civic engagement in the existing political process is to support voting across the world. It is striking that only about half of Americans eligible to vote participate in elections. This is low compared to other countries, but democracy is receding in many countries and there is a large opportunity across the world to encourage civic participation. > In the United States election last year, we helped more than 2 million people register to vote and then go vote. This was among the largest voter turnout efforts in history, and larger than those of both major parties combined. In every election around the world, we keep improving our tools to help more people register and vote, and we hope to eventually enable hundreds of millions of more people to vote in elections than do today, in every democratic country around the world. > Local civic engagement is a big opportunity as well as national. Today, most of us do not even know who our local representatives are, but many policies impacting our lives are local, and this is where our participation has the greatest influence. Research suggests reading local news is directly correlated with local civic engagement. This shows how building an informed community, supportive local communities, and a civically-engaged community are all related. > Beyond voting, the greatest opportunity is helping people stay engaged with the issues that matter to them every day, not just every few years at the ballot box. We can help establish direct dialogue and accountability between people and our elected leaders. In India, Prime Minister Modi has asked his ministers to share their meetings and information on Facebook so they can hear direct feedback from citizens. In Kenya, whole villages are in WhatsApp groups together, including their representatives. In recent campaigns around the world -- from India and Indonesia across Europe to the United States -- we've seen the candidate with the largest and most engaged following on Facebook usually wins. Just as TV became the primary medium for civic communication in the 1960s, social media is becoming this in the 21st century. > This creates an opportunity for us to connect with our representatives at all levels. In the last few months, we have already helped our community double the number of connections between people and our representatives by making it easier to connect with all our representatives in one click. When we connect, we can engage directly in comments and messages. For example, in Iceland, it's common to tag politicians in group discussions so they can take community issues to parliament. > Sometimes people must speak out and demonstrate for what they believe is right. From Tahrir Square to the Tea Party -- our community organizes these demonstrations using our infrastructure for events and groups. On a daily basis, people use their voices to share their views in ways that can spread around the world and grow into movements. The Women's March is an example of this, where a grandmother with an internet connection wrote a post that led her friends to start a Facebook event that eventually turned into millions of people marching in cities around the world. > Giving people a voice is a principle our community has been committed to since we began. As we look ahead to building the social infrastructure for a global community, we will work on building new tools that encourage thoughtful civic engagement. Empowering us to use our voices will only become more important.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
demonshalo 10y ago
> Democracy means ownership and accountability, along with shared governance. yeaaaaa no! that's not what democracy means. > Ownership is also about economics. It is about who benefits. Right now, Facebook is in the process of absorbing huge swaths of the global advertising market, lots of our life-giving communities and now much of politics and media—funnelling the profits mainly to the founders, early investors and other large shareholders. -.- > This billionaire’s refusal to recognize the rise of authoritarianism as a symptom of economic inequality and insecurity is startling Authoritarianism? Sick usage of $5 words... anything to back that claim up with? Inequality is not to be confused with inequity... They are not synonyms. To the author: Mark makes a whole lot of sense if you consider the fact that he is talking about a generation that considers sharing a Facebook post to be political engagement. You have to view things from that perspective. You can bash his skull off if you so wish for saying what he believes, but he would not have had that opinion had it not been supported by our shitty behavior as a generation. Hurling insults and labels is the primary way of having a political discourse these days - prime example being the two general election candidates (basket of deplorables anyone?). This phenomenon can even be seen in this very article you wrote. Now, where do you think the best place to have such eloquent political discourse is? The answer to that is rather simple: Facebook of-course with Twatter being a close second combined with all other social networking sites such as HN. He understands his audience and he understands this upcoming generation. You can all raise your pitch forks and talk about the awesomeness of democracy and the evil of large corporations. But in reality, every single one of us is contributing to this mess. Mark is merely someone who is capitalizing on our collective moronic behavior. And I personally cannot fault him for that.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  > Hurling insults and labels is the primary way of having a political discourse these days case in point: your post.
  - demonshalo 10y ago
    The irony is lost on some people! thatsthejoke.png
cmdrfred 10y ago
"Because people are dumb and need a nanny state to show them the right path." doesn't sound good so they just down vote you.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  ...Because obviously the only options are the status quo, or a "nanny state". Come on.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Can you state concretely what the third option is that you think he is obligated to do?
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I don't think there is some concrete third option, I think there is a literal universe of infinite options between the false dichotomy he presented.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Great. Out of that literal universe of infinite options, could you list one?
        M_Grey 10y ago
        See Burkaman's answer.
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Anything involving tagging content, or changing the incentives of publishers and posters could be a nice third option. Of course there is no single answer, that would just be turning a false dichotomy into a false trichotomy. As an analogy, a city might think unhealthy soda is causing problems for its inhabitants. Saying "not our job" would be the status quo. A nanny state would ban sales of soda. Requiring clearly displayed nutrition facts would be one of many "third options" in between these extremes. Other options could involve a new tax, or subsidizing healthier drinks, or asking schools to cover the topic in health classes, or producing a series of public service ads, etc. etc. There's a whole continuum of potential actions.
krushing 10y ago
Why not modify Facebook's News Feed to promote critical thinking, philosophy, self-reliance, resilience, tempered consumerism and practical ways to learn new skills? You have the world's largest television and the tangible ability to promote powerful, positive ideas over mere distractions. Your goal shouldn't be to digitize the tabloid aisle and put it on my forever buzzing handheld computer. All the clickbait, fake stories, trolling, mindless advertisements, contrarian articles, political hyperbolic narratives and conspiracy theories are analogous to a lot of other wasteful pursuits of thinking and existing that are perfectly acceptable by today's culture. Connect the world in uplifting ways. Cater to our higher ideals not our base emotions.
- funkyy 10y ago
  Politics is much more appealing. It's what drive power hungry people. Mark have money, have some power, makes an impact with his decisions. Politics gives access to much more power. Influencing media and news does this as well. Such power can be used to change election results, start riots, force your own agendas and control thinking stream of masses.
- aedocw 10y ago
  Consider the audience. This would be like replacing Real Housewives Of Beverly Hills with Masterpiece Theatre. The folks who tuned in for the trash would not stick around to be enlightened, they'd just change the channel.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    Agreed. I would also add there are far better channels to get intellectually stimulating material than FB and their news feeds. I've tried multiple times to try and set up my FB news feed to be more centered on technology and development news. Unless I was really diligent, it was just turn back into gossip and trash within a few months. I just gave up and sought out other avenues for this kind of news.
  - in_cahoots 10y ago
    I think you'd be surprised. It's not an "us vs them" situation, most of us have some frivolous outlet to go along with our real interests. I skim trashy magazines when they are around, and I watch the latest blockbusters each summer. None of this stops me from also watching 'prestige television' or keeping up-to-date with current events. People like Jon Stewart and Jon Oliver have managed to bridge the divide between news and entertainment, and I don't see why social media should be any different.
funkyy 10y ago
The interesting thing that happened to me the other day regarding corporates messing with democracy. First time I have got a suggestion on my mobile for Google+ article to read (I am not using Google+ at all) was I think right after the presidency was won by Trump - the article was highly critical of him. Then within a week, I have got another two suggestions for similar articles that were critical of him. And then nothing again. No suggestion since then. Now, as being a person that does not follow any mainstream media, no TV news, etc. this smelled like outright propaganda. Forcing their corporate views on to me. I might not be supporter of Trump, but I can think on my own, and I want to judge a President based on their actions rather than media storm started by media companies that lost credibility during the elections.
- phailhaus 10y ago
  Google guessed that you would be interested in those articles based on your search behavior, that's their entire business model. There is no conspiracy to push Google's politics on you because it would undermine their perceived impartiality. They're everyone's search engine, not just Democrats.
  - funkyy 10y ago
    I never once got a push notification from Google+ on my mobile phone suggesting anything. This was the only three times I have got ones. It's highly unusual occurrence.
  - makomk 10y ago
    This isn't the only example. The one I saw was Google pushing a special section on immigration to my main Youtube front page and, as far as I can tell, to everyone else's too a few weeks ago right after Trump's ban. It had completely different formatting from anything I've seen in the feed before or since, and seemed to contain identical videos for everyone. Youtube does not normally recommend political videos of any kind to me.
golemotron 10y ago
In time we'll see that our biggest problem is mediated communication. Facebook is not a common carrier. They curate, and as they swallow up larger areas of communication they have the ability to impact world opinion and events. Even if they don't use that power, it is a power that should be checked because it can be abused without our knowledge. Google and Twitter are in similar positions.
- petra 10y ago
  So facebook can just say - curation is useful. We'll offer a variety of curation algorithms, for each citizen to choose it's own, and call it a day. The only question is whether this would impact facebook's appeal and competitive advantage, but intuitively , it doesn't seem so.
  - golemotron 10y ago
    I think that would be a good first step, but my concern is the same as it is for search [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_manipulation_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_manipulation_eff... ]. All we have are the assurances that it has not been tampered with. There's no way of knowing. The surest solution is many competing "facebooks" rather than one large one.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Facebook may curate, but also everyone on Facebook is a curator. They post or like what they approve of. So Facebook is a giant curation engine, but everyone gets to be a curator. That's... rather democratic. It breaks down when everyone only listens to those who agree with them, of course...
  - imw 10y ago
    The degree to which your likes and dislikes influence what you are fed is hidden in Facebook's proprietary codebase. For the most part, feed algorithms are tailored to show you whatever will keep your eyeballs on the screen. The idea that your conscious desires prevail in the realm of allocating your attention has been pretty well debunked by psychology and cognitive science.
roymurdock 10y ago
Facebook is a publicly traded corporation, therefore its goal is to maximize shareholder revenue. Facebook generates revenue by selling ad space on its website. Ad space that is surrounded by attention grabbing content will generate the most revenue, thereby maximizing shareholder value. At the lowest common denominator, negative emotions such as outrage and fear draw attention. Facebook has no incentive to remove or alter this content in any way, other than to avoid illegal content that could produce lawsuits. Fake news is not illegal. If you don't want to consume the same questionable news as the lowest common denominator, pay for a subscription to a news service. Otherwise don't use Facebook for anything more than a photo sharing/messaging platform. Dis-aggregate the pieces of the platform. If you can't do that, then avoid the whole service. There are plenty of alternatives for each piece.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  Great for someone like you or me who know not to trust everything you read on facebook. Not so great for my 60yo dad who still believes pretty much everything he sees online, and doubly so when he reads it on facebook because it was a "forward" from someone he trusts. This is a complex question and there are no easy answers.
  - rafiki6 10y ago
    answer is actually easy, execution is complicated...clearly too many people don't have the required IQ to participate in their own governance, as such maybe it's time to prevent them from doing so
    - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      >too many people don't have the required IQ to participate in their own governance, as such maybe it's time to prevent them from doing so ^The mantra of every authoritarian dictatorship. If the people lack the information to manage their own well-being, it is our job to inform them, not subjugate them.
      - 10y ago
dmix 10y ago
We've all pretty much given up on the idea that social media will 'democratize' the media. That slippery slope was passed long ago. I was just reading a book by William F Buckley from 1959 about early American conservatism. Many of the points sound straight out of modern day partisan media: - Liberal Bias in newspapers and universities: Buckley specifically cites NYTimes, NYPost, WaPo, and other prominent papers at the time all exhibit a noticeable liberal leaning. He also included a number of examples in higher education, especially at elite universities. - Liberal Mania: Buckley noted that the hardcore liberals have a habit of grouping up on anyone who dares to become a prominent public proponent for Conservatism. They try to get them fired or formally reprimanded by authorities (such as by congress leaders). He also notes a level of smug/elitism. A view point that the left believe they have discovered the correct ideology and anything else is heresies. - Opponents = Hitler: This was the left's favouritve label for right leaning opponents. He shared a story about how Eleanor Roosevelt famously labeled McCarthy-ism as Hitler-ism. When challenged by a reporter on this label she was asked if she would make the same comparison for this Soviet diplomat she had a known positive relationship with. But she refused - despite the fact he played a leading role in Stalin's purges. It was something reserved for the right. This was written 58 years ago. Whether these generalizations are true or not, it's funny how history repeats itself.
- Tloewald 10y ago
  William F. Buckley's idea of what constitutes liberal leaning is hardly any kind of gold standard. Bear in mind that no real left wing policies or media platforms exist in the US, it's right vs. far right. The Economist is considered a left-wing organ here.
  - judah 10y ago
    >> "Bear in mind that no real left wing policies or media platforms exist in the US" Newspapers in the US are overwhelmingly and verifiably leftist[0]. Out of the 46 major newspapers in the US, 41 of them endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, several endorsed Gary Johnson, and only 1 endorsed Donald Trump. [1] [0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-leads-trump-and-obama-and-reagan-in-the-newspaper-endorsement-race/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-leads-trump-and... [1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trump-newspaper-endorsements http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trump-ne...
rafiki6 10y ago
America always seems to rely on industrialists to move it's country forward. What qualifies Mark Zuckerburg to be a trust source on anything but building an ad platform? Get your shit together America, it's time to change up the way you govern yourselves and give less power to the wealthy
ajmarsh 10y ago
This is kinda our fault you know. Moglen sums things up pretty well. http://observer.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-at-me-for-being-on-facebook/ http://observer.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-...
caconym_ 10y ago
I admit that I haven't read the "manifesto" but it seems strange to me that the guy in charge of a platform that is arguably doing significant damage to our culture and democracy, all in the name of advertising profits, could be considered as an authority on how to fix the problems in question. One preliminary solution seems fairly simple, and Zuckerberg is in a somewhat unique position in that he has the power to implement it on a large scale: stop feeding people an endless stream of ad-stuffed trash media selected by an algorithm maximizing for clickbait factor and nothing else. I genuinely believe that it's poisoning people's minds and doing significant damage to our society. Of course, it is making them money, so it will not change (in fact it will probably get worse). It is not written in stone that a profitable enterprise must be compatible with the "greater good" (for lack of a better term). Some things are inherently destructive. Facebook takes a lot and gives nothing back. The idea of handing over the reins of our society to some outgrowth of its current model is as terrifying as it is hilarious in its blind arrogance and ignorance.
- blazespin 10y ago
  Oh come on. If you don't like Facebook, don't log on. Lots of people chose not to. As someone who uses it a lot there is nothing on there that is required or necessary to live or work unlike other services I use (LinkedIn, MSFT, google, etc) In fact, FB is probably a detriment to my livelihood if anything.
  - Shubley 10y ago
    Parent is not complaining about how FB affects him personally and directly, but about how it is affecting society. Perhaps you have the mental context and farsightedness to just not log on. But, you still have to deal with the large scale socio-political consequences of the fact that billions of others can't resist logging on, can't resist the clickbait, or don't understand why they should.
    - corndoge 10y ago
      The basic point of discussion here is really what is optimific with respect to what I'll term 'information paternalism'. Where do we draw the line between people's responsibility to educate themselves, and the responsibility of corporations (especially "the media") to feed them reliable information? Ditto "fake news", ditto Twitter disinfo hysteria, ditto any source of information, especially online. At some point the people have to take responsibility for, and validate themselves, what they read and believe.
kartan 10y ago
Virtual reality is a dystopian world. Digital natives where born in cages where everything you say is recorded, every free space is an advertisement, and what you see is an illusion. You scream into the night not knowing if anyone is listening. You may think that you are in a big city, communications where never so good nor so cheap. But digital gods decide how far the message goes. No one knows how they take their decisions, nobody asks, nobody expects them to answer. Virtual streets and bazaars are proprietary. Billions have an open window into the virtual world in their pockets, but there are just two shops where to buy from. Digital products are scarce by design. But even when you buy them you can not own them, you are just allowed to rent until the deal changes. Common sense doesn't apply. Virtual worlds have very real problems.
unityByFreedom 10y ago
Isn't co-ownership the same thing as stock? What is the author arguing for? Does he want Facebook to become a governmental entity? No thanks... I fail to see how whatever chaos is happening is Zuckerberg's fault. I'm unhappy with the populist media, and how difficult it has become to tell truth from fiction. That said, Facebook is just a tool. Blaming Facebook is just like blaming the media.

260 points by ntnsndr 10y ago

Get over it, FB is a platform that was used more successfully by one candidate over the other. It's like changing the mail system because one candidate bothered to hire copywriters

ljk 10y ago
except other issues on the FB platform like censorship
- fleitz 10y ago
  You feel that FB was censoring in a way that tilted the election for Trump?
  - ljk 10y ago
    no, i was referring to the "mail system" analogy

wccrawford 10y ago

>As recently as just after the U.S. elections in November, he attempted to dodge responsibility for Facebook’s role in shaping the outcome. Now, three months later, he is ready to take charge of the security, accuracy and diversity of how the world shares information. And he wants our help. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

m3rc 10y ago
Those aren't the only decisions you have. Pretending you don't have any say in what's going on and then stepping in and pulling... whatever it is that he's trying to do now, are both not helpful.
M_Grey 10y ago
Damned if you do nothing, and then damned if what you do is a transparent and empty attempt to evade anything like personal or corporate responsibility going forward. Especially damned if you're a very well known quantity, and what is known about you is less than flattering. Doesn't trip off the tongue quite so nicely, but it has the benefit of being true.
- imw 10y ago
  Damn. Well said.
rhizome 10y ago
Third option: not participating in the news flow at all.
- supernumerary 10y ago
  This is a smart idea. Intro of NewsFeed was heavily protested at inception... probably because we don't like it when our transitional objects interject reality: https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.html https://iainmait.land/posts/20170201-transitional-object.htm...
- burkaman 10y ago
  Not really possible, unless you mean shutting down Facebook completely. They could get rid of the trending section, but I think people directly posting and sharing random bullshit is a more significant and difficult problem.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    FB involving themselves in what people post to each other is the greater problem. FB would absolutely not have to shut down if they refrained from making business decisions based on what you post.
fleitz 10y ago
Why is Zuckerberg / FB responsible for presenting only views you agree with to his audience? If you don't like someone's ideas make better ones. It's not zuckerbergs fault people liked one persons ideas over another.

dsschnau 10y ago

heh. Zuck doesn't give a fuck

dingo_bat 10y ago

Facebook should just say "Content owned by poster." and call it a day. Trying to push or censor/hide any content based on what's in it or who posted it is wrong, IMO. Taking sides in a political issue has never been helpful to any company in the long-term.

M_Grey 10y ago
...Except that part of their potential business model has always been, "Content owned by us, now that you posted it."
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  Exactly. And publishing any article that can be defined as hate speech is an offense in Germany and The Netherlands. Don't know about other countries.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    You know, I didn't even consider that. It isn't a crime in the US, but I imagine that it is in the UK and many other countries.
    - idiot_stick 10y ago
      >It isn't a crime in the US, but I imagine that it is in the UK and many other countries. Yes, the US truly is one of the last bastions of free speech, believe it or not. Many other countries, including my own, can imprison you for things you say.
      - spiderfarmer 10y ago
        In my country they also look at the intent of the law. The intent of this law is to prevent you from rallying one group of people to feel superior over another group of people, over racial, sexual, religious and other issues. You can still say these things in private without repercussions.

fullshark 10y ago

> This is a noble ambition, but perhaps more noble, and certainly more democratic, would be to distribute that stock among the people who made it valuable in the first place: Facebook’s users. This piece is all over the place, but this is the thesis I'd say. The actual implementation of this seems doomed to fail, writer likely doesn't believe this anyway and wants to argue that Zuckerberg doesn't really care about democracy I'd guess.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago

How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time? Democracy should exist with the government, not with corporations.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Devil's Advocate: The Federalist Papers required the use of privately owned printing presses for large-scale distribution. I'm not sure we can ever disentangle corporations from democracy, especially in America.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  the federalist papers were not an official act of government. they were anonymously published (these days we would call it a "leak") think pieces designed to tilt elite opinion. we look upon them sympathetically because we agree with many of the positions espoused in the papers, but make no mistake, the publishing of the federalist papers was electioneering.
  - ColanR 10y ago
    Technically, there were also the Anti-Federalist papers - and together, they were a public debate over what the new Democratic Constitutional Republic (more or less) should look like. Also, yes, they were trying to garner support and interest. Probably.
mtrn 10y ago
> How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time? I do not use FB and I still have friends, family, fun and a happy life.
vowelless 10y ago
I deleted my account a month ago. No regrets.
acchow 10y ago
You want government-owned media? Democracy cannot exist without a free press.

supernumerary 10y ago

With these FB/MZ take-downs can you try and square it's instrumentality in mass movements (good and bad) first before skewering it as a voracious Bobbit Worm in the aquarium we like to call democracy ... Also we all have massive agency to do whatever we want on it. This should be squared away before scapegoating it like this.

imw 10y ago
You have the appearance of agency. That agency is mediated and curtailed by a profit-motivated intermediary that ultimately has almost total control.

yeukhon 10y ago

> In a country with functioning democracy, citizens vote responsibly because they know they will own the consequences if they don’t. I never heard gerrymandering until after the 2016 election. It is scary how minority can still win the district election. So first fix that hole, and even getting rid of Electoral College, then we can talk about vote's value. Cooperative platform seems to be a thing for this journalist. My reading is some socialism in this writing. > would be to distribute that stock among the people who made it valuable in the first place: Facebook’s users. Like the British retailer John Lewis Partnership did for its employees, the stock could be held in a trust that users directly control and have the opportunity to benefit from. I am going to say this is tough to do. Employee != users. Granted, there are fake accounts, how do you deal with that? You can't have a fake employee because that's a fraud. > On the other hand, users might then have at least a seat in the boardroom when decisions are being made about what to do with their valuable, personal data now locked up in the platform. Same argument above. Users can actually participate if they purchase stocks, but sure the entry cost is high. I completely agree users should have influence in how a company runs and creates product, i.e. this is how a successful business should be, listen to users and take in the good advice. Let us supposed FB allows users to vote on features and how Facebook should run, then some malicious organization could create a lot of fake accounts to influence the outcome. Are we going to now required everyone to give out passport / proper government ID and verify our online status? Otherwise, how can you take these voting seriously? This is exactly what driving people away from Facebook the fact so many people are paranoid about their online privacy and identity. This is different from taking a user survey and asking WOULD YOU LIKE. Internet is fighting against fake news. Until there is a solid solution, sorry, it's just idealism. The ideas are exciting but please give me a concrete implementation.

wang_li 10y ago
Gerrymandering is required by the voting rights act. An redistricting that changes the racial make up of a district can be challenged in court. So when demographics change over the decades, the districts have to be drawn in more and more convoluted ways so as to not disenfranchise a racial minority.
- 10y ago

endswapper 10y ago

The author, disappointingly, seems to present Zuckerberg's "Building Global Community," covered in vaseline to advance his own political agenda. Zuckerberg is clearly talking about community and not governance. Additionally, throwing around terms like "authoritarianism", "feudal" and "dictator" does nothing to engage Zuckerberg's points, or advance his own agenda. Rather, it simply clouds the conversation with personal assumptions, judgments, attacks, etc. I'm old enough to remember when Bill Gates was depicted as a villain on a daily basis. This appears to have a similar tone. Today, I'm not sure we could have a better fiduciary than Bill Gates through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Had he distributed ownership of Microsoft in a way similar to what the author suggests of Facebook the Global Community would have lost out, big league[0]. [0] NB: Trumpism intentional for the sake of humor.

wutbrodo 10y ago
> covered in vaseline I am fascinated by this expression. What on Earth does this mean?
- endswapper 10y ago
  He's not representing MZ's post clearly, i.e. vaseline on a lens.

thomasahle 10y ago

The relevant part of "Building Global Community" https://www.facebook.com/notes/10154544292806634/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/10154544292806634/ > Our society will reflect our collective values only if we engage in the civic process and participate in self-governance. There are two distinct types of social infrastructure that must be built: > The first encourages engagement in existing political processes: voting, engaging with issues and representatives, speaking out, and sometimes organizing. Only through dramatically greater engagement can we ensure these political processes reflect our values. > The second is establishing a new process for citizens worldwide to participate in collective decision-making. Our world is more connected than ever, and we face global problems that span national boundaries. As the largest global community, Facebook can explore examples of how community governance might work at scale. > The starting point for civic engagement in the existing political process is to support voting across the world. It is striking that only about half of Americans eligible to vote participate in elections. This is low compared to other countries, but democracy is receding in many countries and there is a large opportunity across the world to encourage civic participation. > In the United States election last year, we helped more than 2 million people register to vote and then go vote. This was among the largest voter turnout efforts in history, and larger than those of both major parties combined. In every election around the world, we keep improving our tools to help more people register and vote, and we hope to eventually enable hundreds of millions of more people to vote in elections than do today, in every democratic country around the world. > Local civic engagement is a big opportunity as well as national. Today, most of us do not even know who our local representatives are, but many policies impacting our lives are local, and this is where our participation has the greatest influence. Research suggests reading local news is directly correlated with local civic engagement. This shows how building an informed community, supportive local communities, and a civically-engaged community are all related. > Beyond voting, the greatest opportunity is helping people stay engaged with the issues that matter to them every day, not just every few years at the ballot box. We can help establish direct dialogue and accountability between people and our elected leaders. In India, Prime Minister Modi has asked his ministers to share their meetings and information on Facebook so they can hear direct feedback from citizens. In Kenya, whole villages are in WhatsApp groups together, including their representatives. In recent campaigns around the world -- from India and Indonesia across Europe to the United States -- we've seen the candidate with the largest and most engaged following on Facebook usually wins. Just as TV became the primary medium for civic communication in the 1960s, social media is becoming this in the 21st century. > This creates an opportunity for us to connect with our representatives at all levels. In the last few months, we have already helped our community double the number of connections between people and our representatives by making it easier to connect with all our representatives in one click. When we connect, we can engage directly in comments and messages. For example, in Iceland, it's common to tag politicians in group discussions so they can take community issues to parliament. > Sometimes people must speak out and demonstrate for what they believe is right. From Tahrir Square to the Tea Party -- our community organizes these demonstrations using our infrastructure for events and groups. On a daily basis, people use their voices to share their views in ways that can spread around the world and grow into movements. The Women's March is an example of this, where a grandmother with an internet connection wrote a post that led her friends to start a Facebook event that eventually turned into millions of people marching in cities around the world. > Giving people a voice is a principle our community has been committed to since we began. As we look ahead to building the social infrastructure for a global community, we will work on building new tools that encourage thoughtful civic engagement. Empowering us to use our voices will only become more important.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

demonshalo 10y ago

> Democracy means ownership and accountability, along with shared governance. yeaaaaa no! that's not what democracy means. > Ownership is also about economics. It is about who benefits. Right now, Facebook is in the process of absorbing huge swaths of the global advertising market, lots of our life-giving communities and now much of politics and media—funnelling the profits mainly to the founders, early investors and other large shareholders. -.- > This billionaire’s refusal to recognize the rise of authoritarianism as a symptom of economic inequality and insecurity is startling Authoritarianism? Sick usage of $5 words... anything to back that claim up with? Inequality is not to be confused with inequity... They are not synonyms. To the author: Mark makes a whole lot of sense if you consider the fact that he is talking about a generation that considers sharing a Facebook post to be political engagement. You have to view things from that perspective. You can bash his skull off if you so wish for saying what he believes, but he would not have had that opinion had it not been supported by our shitty behavior as a generation. Hurling insults and labels is the primary way of having a political discourse these days - prime example being the two general election candidates (basket of deplorables anyone?). This phenomenon can even be seen in this very article you wrote. Now, where do you think the best place to have such eloquent political discourse is? The answer to that is rather simple: Facebook of-course with Twatter being a close second combined with all other social networking sites such as HN. He understands his audience and he understands this upcoming generation. You can all raise your pitch forks and talk about the awesomeness of democracy and the evil of large corporations. But in reality, every single one of us is contributing to this mess. Mark is merely someone who is capitalizing on our collective moronic behavior. And I personally cannot fault him for that.

metaphorm 10y ago
> Hurling insults and labels is the primary way of having a political discourse these days case in point: your post.
- demonshalo 10y ago
  The irony is lost on some people! thatsthejoke.png

cmdrfred 10y ago

"Because people are dumb and need a nanny state to show them the right path." doesn't sound good so they just down vote you.

M_Grey 10y ago
...Because obviously the only options are the status quo, or a "nanny state". Come on.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Can you state concretely what the third option is that you think he is obligated to do?
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I don't think there is some concrete third option, I think there is a literal universe of infinite options between the false dichotomy he presented.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      Great. Out of that literal universe of infinite options, could you list one?
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        See Burkaman's answer.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    Anything involving tagging content, or changing the incentives of publishers and posters could be a nice third option. Of course there is no single answer, that would just be turning a false dichotomy into a false trichotomy. As an analogy, a city might think unhealthy soda is causing problems for its inhabitants. Saying "not our job" would be the status quo. A nanny state would ban sales of soda. Requiring clearly displayed nutrition facts would be one of many "third options" in between these extremes. Other options could involve a new tax, or subsidizing healthier drinks, or asking schools to cover the topic in health classes, or producing a series of public service ads, etc. etc. There's a whole continuum of potential actions.

krushing 10y ago

Why not modify Facebook's News Feed to promote critical thinking, philosophy, self-reliance, resilience, tempered consumerism and practical ways to learn new skills? You have the world's largest television and the tangible ability to promote powerful, positive ideas over mere distractions. Your goal shouldn't be to digitize the tabloid aisle and put it on my forever buzzing handheld computer. All the clickbait, fake stories, trolling, mindless advertisements, contrarian articles, political hyperbolic narratives and conspiracy theories are analogous to a lot of other wasteful pursuits of thinking and existing that are perfectly acceptable by today's culture. Connect the world in uplifting ways. Cater to our higher ideals not our base emotions.

funkyy 10y ago
Politics is much more appealing. It's what drive power hungry people. Mark have money, have some power, makes an impact with his decisions. Politics gives access to much more power. Influencing media and news does this as well. Such power can be used to change election results, start riots, force your own agendas and control thinking stream of masses.
aedocw 10y ago
Consider the audience. This would be like replacing Real Housewives Of Beverly Hills with Masterpiece Theatre. The folks who tuned in for the trash would not stick around to be enlightened, they'd just change the channel.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  Agreed. I would also add there are far better channels to get intellectually stimulating material than FB and their news feeds. I've tried multiple times to try and set up my FB news feed to be more centered on technology and development news. Unless I was really diligent, it was just turn back into gossip and trash within a few months. I just gave up and sought out other avenues for this kind of news.
- in_cahoots 10y ago
  I think you'd be surprised. It's not an "us vs them" situation, most of us have some frivolous outlet to go along with our real interests. I skim trashy magazines when they are around, and I watch the latest blockbusters each summer. None of this stops me from also watching 'prestige television' or keeping up-to-date with current events. People like Jon Stewart and Jon Oliver have managed to bridge the divide between news and entertainment, and I don't see why social media should be any different.

funkyy 10y ago

The interesting thing that happened to me the other day regarding corporates messing with democracy. First time I have got a suggestion on my mobile for Google+ article to read (I am not using Google+ at all) was I think right after the presidency was won by Trump - the article was highly critical of him. Then within a week, I have got another two suggestions for similar articles that were critical of him. And then nothing again. No suggestion since then. Now, as being a person that does not follow any mainstream media, no TV news, etc. this smelled like outright propaganda. Forcing their corporate views on to me. I might not be supporter of Trump, but I can think on my own, and I want to judge a President based on their actions rather than media storm started by media companies that lost credibility during the elections.

phailhaus 10y ago
Google guessed that you would be interested in those articles based on your search behavior, that's their entire business model. There is no conspiracy to push Google's politics on you because it would undermine their perceived impartiality. They're everyone's search engine, not just Democrats.
- funkyy 10y ago
  I never once got a push notification from Google+ on my mobile phone suggesting anything. This was the only three times I have got ones. It's highly unusual occurrence.
- makomk 10y ago
  This isn't the only example. The one I saw was Google pushing a special section on immigration to my main Youtube front page and, as far as I can tell, to everyone else's too a few weeks ago right after Trump's ban. It had completely different formatting from anything I've seen in the feed before or since, and seemed to contain identical videos for everyone. Youtube does not normally recommend political videos of any kind to me.

golemotron 10y ago

In time we'll see that our biggest problem is mediated communication. Facebook is not a common carrier. They curate, and as they swallow up larger areas of communication they have the ability to impact world opinion and events. Even if they don't use that power, it is a power that should be checked because it can be abused without our knowledge. Google and Twitter are in similar positions.

petra 10y ago
So facebook can just say - curation is useful. We'll offer a variety of curation algorithms, for each citizen to choose it's own, and call it a day. The only question is whether this would impact facebook's appeal and competitive advantage, but intuitively , it doesn't seem so.
- golemotron 10y ago
  I think that would be a good first step, but my concern is the same as it is for search [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_manipulation_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_manipulation_eff... ]. All we have are the assurances that it has not been tampered with. There's no way of knowing. The surest solution is many competing "facebooks" rather than one large one.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Facebook may curate, but also everyone on Facebook is a curator. They post or like what they approve of. So Facebook is a giant curation engine, but everyone gets to be a curator. That's... rather democratic. It breaks down when everyone only listens to those who agree with them, of course...
- imw 10y ago
  The degree to which your likes and dislikes influence what you are fed is hidden in Facebook's proprietary codebase. For the most part, feed algorithms are tailored to show you whatever will keep your eyeballs on the screen. The idea that your conscious desires prevail in the realm of allocating your attention has been pretty well debunked by psychology and cognitive science.

roymurdock 10y ago

Facebook is a publicly traded corporation, therefore its goal is to maximize shareholder revenue. Facebook generates revenue by selling ad space on its website. Ad space that is surrounded by attention grabbing content will generate the most revenue, thereby maximizing shareholder value. At the lowest common denominator, negative emotions such as outrage and fear draw attention. Facebook has no incentive to remove or alter this content in any way, other than to avoid illegal content that could produce lawsuits. Fake news is not illegal. If you don't want to consume the same questionable news as the lowest common denominator, pay for a subscription to a news service. Otherwise don't use Facebook for anything more than a photo sharing/messaging platform. Dis-aggregate the pieces of the platform. If you can't do that, then avoid the whole service. There are plenty of alternatives for each piece.

mkaziz 10y ago
Great for someone like you or me who know not to trust everything you read on facebook. Not so great for my 60yo dad who still believes pretty much everything he sees online, and doubly so when he reads it on facebook because it was a "forward" from someone he trusts. This is a complex question and there are no easy answers.
- rafiki6 10y ago
  answer is actually easy, execution is complicated...clearly too many people don't have the required IQ to participate in their own governance, as such maybe it's time to prevent them from doing so
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    >too many people don't have the required IQ to participate in their own governance, as such maybe it's time to prevent them from doing so ^The mantra of every authoritarian dictatorship. If the people lack the information to manage their own well-being, it is our job to inform them, not subjugate them.
    - 10y ago

dmix 10y ago

We've all pretty much given up on the idea that social media will 'democratize' the media. That slippery slope was passed long ago. I was just reading a book by William F Buckley from 1959 about early American conservatism. Many of the points sound straight out of modern day partisan media: - Liberal Bias in newspapers and universities: Buckley specifically cites NYTimes, NYPost, WaPo, and other prominent papers at the time all exhibit a noticeable liberal leaning. He also included a number of examples in higher education, especially at elite universities. - Liberal Mania: Buckley noted that the hardcore liberals have a habit of grouping up on anyone who dares to become a prominent public proponent for Conservatism. They try to get them fired or formally reprimanded by authorities (such as by congress leaders). He also notes a level of smug/elitism. A view point that the left believe they have discovered the correct ideology and anything else is heresies. - Opponents = Hitler: This was the left's favouritve label for right leaning opponents. He shared a story about how Eleanor Roosevelt famously labeled McCarthy-ism as Hitler-ism. When challenged by a reporter on this label she was asked if she would make the same comparison for this Soviet diplomat she had a known positive relationship with. But she refused - despite the fact he played a leading role in Stalin's purges. It was something reserved for the right. This was written 58 years ago. Whether these generalizations are true or not, it's funny how history repeats itself.

Tloewald 10y ago
William F. Buckley's idea of what constitutes liberal leaning is hardly any kind of gold standard. Bear in mind that no real left wing policies or media platforms exist in the US, it's right vs. far right. The Economist is considered a left-wing organ here.
- judah 10y ago
  >> "Bear in mind that no real left wing policies or media platforms exist in the US" Newspapers in the US are overwhelmingly and verifiably leftist[0]. Out of the 46 major newspapers in the US, 41 of them endorsed Hillary Clinton for President, several endorsed Gary Johnson, and only 1 endorsed Donald Trump. [1] [0]: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-leads-trump-and-obama-and-reagan-in-the-newspaper-endorsement-race/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-leads-trump-and... [1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trump-newspaper-endorsements http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/clinton-trump-ne...

rafiki6 10y ago

America always seems to rely on industrialists to move it's country forward. What qualifies Mark Zuckerburg to be a trust source on anything but building an ad platform? Get your shit together America, it's time to change up the way you govern yourselves and give less power to the wealthy

ajmarsh 10y ago

This is kinda our fault you know. Moglen sums things up pretty well. http://observer.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-at-me-for-being-on-facebook/ http://observer.com/2011/12/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-...

caconym_ 10y ago

I admit that I haven't read the "manifesto" but it seems strange to me that the guy in charge of a platform that is arguably doing significant damage to our culture and democracy, all in the name of advertising profits, could be considered as an authority on how to fix the problems in question. One preliminary solution seems fairly simple, and Zuckerberg is in a somewhat unique position in that he has the power to implement it on a large scale: stop feeding people an endless stream of ad-stuffed trash media selected by an algorithm maximizing for clickbait factor and nothing else. I genuinely believe that it's poisoning people's minds and doing significant damage to our society. Of course, it is making them money, so it will not change (in fact it will probably get worse). It is not written in stone that a profitable enterprise must be compatible with the "greater good" (for lack of a better term). Some things are inherently destructive. Facebook takes a lot and gives nothing back. The idea of handing over the reins of our society to some outgrowth of its current model is as terrifying as it is hilarious in its blind arrogance and ignorance.

blazespin 10y ago
Oh come on. If you don't like Facebook, don't log on. Lots of people chose not to. As someone who uses it a lot there is nothing on there that is required or necessary to live or work unlike other services I use (LinkedIn, MSFT, google, etc) In fact, FB is probably a detriment to my livelihood if anything.
- Shubley 10y ago
  Parent is not complaining about how FB affects him personally and directly, but about how it is affecting society. Perhaps you have the mental context and farsightedness to just not log on. But, you still have to deal with the large scale socio-political consequences of the fact that billions of others can't resist logging on, can't resist the clickbait, or don't understand why they should.
  - corndoge 10y ago
    The basic point of discussion here is really what is optimific with respect to what I'll term 'information paternalism'. Where do we draw the line between people's responsibility to educate themselves, and the responsibility of corporations (especially "the media") to feed them reliable information? Ditto "fake news", ditto Twitter disinfo hysteria, ditto any source of information, especially online. At some point the people have to take responsibility for, and validate themselves, what they read and believe.

kartan 10y ago

Virtual reality is a dystopian world. Digital natives where born in cages where everything you say is recorded, every free space is an advertisement, and what you see is an illusion. You scream into the night not knowing if anyone is listening. You may think that you are in a big city, communications where never so good nor so cheap. But digital gods decide how far the message goes. No one knows how they take their decisions, nobody asks, nobody expects them to answer. Virtual streets and bazaars are proprietary. Billions have an open window into the virtual world in their pockets, but there are just two shops where to buy from. Digital products are scarce by design. But even when you buy them you can not own them, you are just allowed to rent until the deal changes. Common sense doesn't apply. Virtual worlds have very real problems.

unityByFreedom 10y ago

Isn't co-ownership the same thing as stock? What is the author arguing for? Does he want Facebook to become a governmental entity? No thanks... I fail to see how whatever chaos is happening is Zuckerberg's fault. I'm unhappy with the populist media, and how difficult it has become to tell truth from fiction. That said, Facebook is just a tool. Blaming Facebook is just like blaming the media.