3 ms·

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.
- eatbitseveryday 10y ago
  > You want government-owned media? No. Why is this a result of not using Facebook? I cannot vote for changes to take place in Facebook. I do not benefit from its billions of dollars of market share. I have no say about the privacy policies. There is no democracy in FB. I could have the above if I a) were already wealthy and owned a large portion of shares, b) were Mark himself, c) a member in Congress enacting legislation on social media websites. Creating groups, organizing leadership roles, etc. on FB is not without restrictions. The company is known for suppressing certain messages [1], closing accounts, etc. It cannot claim to promote democracy and at the same time, censor what its leaders want. Democracy must remain with the government, where people have power. My rights granted to me without concern for wealth, status, etc. Facebook is not media, neither is it democracy. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/norway-accuses-facebook-of-censorship-over-deleted-photo-of-napalm-girl-1473428032 https://www.wsj.com/articles/norway-accuses-facebook-of-cens...
  - acchow 10y ago
    Apologies for the ambiguity. I wasn't responding to "How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time?" I was responding to "Democracy should exist with the government, not with corporations.". Democracy needs corporations - particularly, a media free from government control (unless somehow you think we can manage a not-for-profit media that's not a corporation...I'm not sure how that would be funded)

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.

eatbitseveryday 10y ago
> You want government-owned media? No. Why is this a result of not using Facebook? I cannot vote for changes to take place in Facebook. I do not benefit from its billions of dollars of market share. I have no say about the privacy policies. There is no democracy in FB. I could have the above if I a) were already wealthy and owned a large portion of shares, b) were Mark himself, c) a member in Congress enacting legislation on social media websites. Creating groups, organizing leadership roles, etc. on FB is not without restrictions. The company is known for suppressing certain messages [1], closing accounts, etc. It cannot claim to promote democracy and at the same time, censor what its leaders want. Democracy must remain with the government, where people have power. My rights granted to me without concern for wealth, status, etc. Facebook is not media, neither is it democracy. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/norway-accuses-facebook-of-censorship-over-deleted-photo-of-napalm-girl-1473428032 https://www.wsj.com/articles/norway-accuses-facebook-of-cens...
- acchow 10y ago
  Apologies for the ambiguity. I wasn't responding to "How more unavoidable is Facebook becoming over time?" I was responding to "Democracy should exist with the government, not with corporations.". Democracy needs corporations - particularly, a media free from government control (unless somehow you think we can manage a not-for-profit media that's not a corporation...I'm not sure how that would be funded)