4 ms·

> Seems like we are going full steam into a dystopian society Gonna have to roll my eyes pretty hard at this. These are privately owned servers, they can delet

> Seems like we are going full steam into a dystopian society Gonna have to roll my eyes pretty hard at this. These are privately owned servers, they can delete whatever content they want off of them, if you don't like it, you're totally free to host your own server and content.

williamle8300 10y ago
Sure... It's like a restaurant spitting in your food.
- root_axis 10y ago
  That's an absurd comparison. Besides being illegal, spitting in someone's food creates a health risk for the victim, in addition to being a violation of a customer agreement (wherein you pay money to have food prepared for you with reasonable expectations of cleanliness). Having your posts deleted from a private forum is about as benign as it gets.
Nutomic 10y ago
So what alternative do you propose? 99% of users are on those platforms. Moving everyone to a different platform is almost impossible.
- root_axis 10y ago
  The alternatives are the hundreds of other discussion sites on the web that you're free to use at your own discretion. Twitter isn't so important that it "needs an alternative", if you don't like it, don't use it. In the same vein, if all my comments get downvoted on HN, it doesn't mean HN "needs an alternative" anymore than I am inclined to create one and the masses are inclined to use it. If they're not, that means it isn't needed. None of that changes the fact that twitter is still free to do whatever they want with their own code and servers, and you're free to do the same with yours.
- chrononaut 10y ago
  It's worth pointing out that some of the aforementioned platforms are specifically popular because of the curated content that they allow. You're on a platform now that effectively limits and controls the material. For example, it's a particular reason why some people like 4chan, while others dislike it.
- acheron 10y ago
  "Will MySpace ever lose its monopoly?" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.... "In social networking, there is a huge advantage to have scale. You can find almost anyone on MySpace and the more time that has been invested in the site, the more locked in people are".
dilap 10y ago
Yeah, you can set up your own server and "content", but it ain't gunna be like Twitter, because that's where the people are. Network effects make it very hard to launch a competitor Twitter is an incredibly important communication medium; as an example, it almost certainly was instrumental in electing Trump to the presidency. Just because it's privately owned doesn't mean we should be content to have it run like a petty authoritarian regime.
- JackFr 10y ago
  How about you spend billions of dollars growing a network, and I tell you what to do with it? (That being said, IMHO, this is truly shortsighted means to collect a couple of bucks today, and a good way to diminish the value of the network over the long term.)
  - dilap 10y ago
    I don't think it's unreasonable to compel companies to behave in certain ways using the law, especially very large and influential companies. Competition & the market is all well and good, but it's not a panacea. It's very easy to reach a "local minimum" where there are globally bad things happened that cannot be remedied by competition, because it's too expensive/hard/impossible for a competitor to come into existence.
- root_axis 10y ago
  Twitter is an incredibly important communication medium Perhaps, but that's not an inherent property of twitter itself, it just happens that people are there now, but the same could be said about Digg 6 years ago, or myspace 12 years ago or ICQ 20 years ago, people move around the web as trends come and go. Maybe your competitor will be the next big one, but you're not entitled to a network effect just because you don't like twitter, and neither are you entitled to dictate twitter's prerogatives just because twitter happens to be popular as of April 2017.
  - dilap 10y ago
    Nah, none of those networks were anywhere near as influential as Twitter is now. Many reporters basically live on Twitter; it's at the center our media world. I don't believe in the idea of "entitled to" or not "entitled to" as absolute moral truths. We come up with a set of rules as a society and entitlements come from those rules. It's perfectly reasonable to imagine various combinations of rules and try to guess which combination will give us the society we like most. One possible rule is "private companies should be able to do whatever they want under all circumstances," which is what you and several others seem to be arguing here. I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint in the small, but once corporate entities reach a certain scale and omnipresence, I think it ceases to be reasonable -- in the limit as a corporate entity grows large and powerful, it becomes a government. As it approaches that limit, it should be similarly constrained. Let me give you an example that will probably make you agree with me. Let's say Twitter decides -- since, hey, it's a private entity and can do whatever it wants with its product -- to delete any accounts that some machine-learning algorithm has identified as belonging to racial group X. Cool or nah?
chc 10y ago
A lot of dystopias have involved visions of the future where important parts of society have been largely subsumed by corporations. Those two ideas don't really conflict.
- root_axis 10y ago
  Twitter isn't "an important part of society largely subsumed by corporations", Twitter is a corporation and has been one from the start, but more importantly nobody is forced to use it. People use it because they like it, but frankly, in my opinion and in the opinion of pretty much everyone I know, twitter is mostly crap by a huge margin.
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    >nobody is forced to use it Social conformity is far more subtly persuasive than outright violence in this day and age. "Choosing" to opt out of corporate ownership is equivalent to a de facto excommunication from society.
    - root_axis 10y ago
      >"Choosing" to opt out of corporate ownership is equivalent to a de facto excommunication from society. Not using twitter isn't an excommunication from society, that's absurd hyperbole that might be a sign you're living in a bubble. I don't use twitter, most people I know don't use it, I'm willing to bet most people on this forum don't use it, which is all totally anecdotal, but the effect size is massive.
      - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
        >Not using twitter isn't an excommunication from society Obviously not, which is why I said "opt[ing] out of corporate ownership" which includes but is not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Google, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft, Apple, Elsevier, etc.
Lambdanaut 10y ago
> if you don't like it, you're totally free to host your own server and content. You're obviously still seeing the world through this fanciful lens of Mom And Pop corporate libertarianism. But there's more to that story. The more power you pour into Mom and Pop, the less they resemble their usual run-of-the-mill town grocer, and the more they become The Town itself in their own right. Corporations are graduating from companies and becoming as powerful or more powerful than many nations. While you roll your eyes, many of us are seeing the greater trend of a world no longer run by countries and constitutions, but by companies and contracts. Worlds where you can't turn around without being faced once again with the company you think it's so easy to just "leave". You say "get out". It's oddly reminiscent of those saying "get out" to those who are upset that their party lost in a contentious political election.
- root_axis 10y ago
  First of all, I'm not a libertarian, I'm a pretty solid liberal and think the government should regulate corporations when they break the letter or even the spirit of the law or when they harm the market or consumers for profit or otherwise. My objection is to the idea that twitter meets the criteria of harming consumers, because people use the services provided by twitter, for free, of their own volition. Twitter does not provide a unique service that is especially useful or necessary, there are hundreds of other discussion boards and messaging apps on the net, and if someone doesn't like how twitter operates, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to another platform. Compare this with something like the ISPs, where consumers have to choose between one and often no alternative options in order to access internet services which are critical for participation in the economy. Unlike any individual ISP, If twitter disappeared overnight, it would have a minimal impact on the economy, society, or even the internet community in general, as most people would immediately shift over to one of the many alternatives like facebook, snapchat, or the explosion of competitors that would hit the scene or suddenly gain traction within days. Twitter is not powerful, it is a popular messaging app where celebrities post publicly. The government isn't necessary here because consumers are not harmed by twitter sucking.
  - chc 10y ago

williamle8300 10y ago

Sure... It's like a restaurant spitting in your food.

root_axis 10y ago
That's an absurd comparison. Besides being illegal, spitting in someone's food creates a health risk for the victim, in addition to being a violation of a customer agreement (wherein you pay money to have food prepared for you with reasonable expectations of cleanliness). Having your posts deleted from a private forum is about as benign as it gets.

Nutomic 10y ago

So what alternative do you propose? 99% of users are on those platforms. Moving everyone to a different platform is almost impossible.

root_axis 10y ago
The alternatives are the hundreds of other discussion sites on the web that you're free to use at your own discretion. Twitter isn't so important that it "needs an alternative", if you don't like it, don't use it. In the same vein, if all my comments get downvoted on HN, it doesn't mean HN "needs an alternative" anymore than I am inclined to create one and the masses are inclined to use it. If they're not, that means it isn't needed. None of that changes the fact that twitter is still free to do whatever they want with their own code and servers, and you're free to do the same with yours.
chrononaut 10y ago
It's worth pointing out that some of the aforementioned platforms are specifically popular because of the curated content that they allow. You're on a platform now that effectively limits and controls the material. For example, it's a particular reason why some people like 4chan, while others dislike it.
acheron 10y ago
"Will MySpace ever lose its monopoly?" https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.comment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/feb/08/business.... "In social networking, there is a huge advantage to have scale. You can find almost anyone on MySpace and the more time that has been invested in the site, the more locked in people are".

dilap 10y ago

Yeah, you can set up your own server and "content", but it ain't gunna be like Twitter, because that's where the people are. Network effects make it very hard to launch a competitor Twitter is an incredibly important communication medium; as an example, it almost certainly was instrumental in electing Trump to the presidency. Just because it's privately owned doesn't mean we should be content to have it run like a petty authoritarian regime.

JackFr 10y ago
How about you spend billions of dollars growing a network, and I tell you what to do with it? (That being said, IMHO, this is truly shortsighted means to collect a couple of bucks today, and a good way to diminish the value of the network over the long term.)
- dilap 10y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to compel companies to behave in certain ways using the law, especially very large and influential companies. Competition & the market is all well and good, but it's not a panacea. It's very easy to reach a "local minimum" where there are globally bad things happened that cannot be remedied by competition, because it's too expensive/hard/impossible for a competitor to come into existence.
root_axis 10y ago
Twitter is an incredibly important communication medium Perhaps, but that's not an inherent property of twitter itself, it just happens that people are there now, but the same could be said about Digg 6 years ago, or myspace 12 years ago or ICQ 20 years ago, people move around the web as trends come and go. Maybe your competitor will be the next big one, but you're not entitled to a network effect just because you don't like twitter, and neither are you entitled to dictate twitter's prerogatives just because twitter happens to be popular as of April 2017.
- dilap 10y ago
  Nah, none of those networks were anywhere near as influential as Twitter is now. Many reporters basically live on Twitter; it's at the center our media world. I don't believe in the idea of "entitled to" or not "entitled to" as absolute moral truths. We come up with a set of rules as a society and entitlements come from those rules. It's perfectly reasonable to imagine various combinations of rules and try to guess which combination will give us the society we like most. One possible rule is "private companies should be able to do whatever they want under all circumstances," which is what you and several others seem to be arguing here. I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint in the small, but once corporate entities reach a certain scale and omnipresence, I think it ceases to be reasonable -- in the limit as a corporate entity grows large and powerful, it becomes a government. As it approaches that limit, it should be similarly constrained. Let me give you an example that will probably make you agree with me. Let's say Twitter decides -- since, hey, it's a private entity and can do whatever it wants with its product -- to delete any accounts that some machine-learning algorithm has identified as belonging to racial group X. Cool or nah?

chc 10y ago

A lot of dystopias have involved visions of the future where important parts of society have been largely subsumed by corporations. Those two ideas don't really conflict.

root_axis 10y ago
Twitter isn't "an important part of society largely subsumed by corporations", Twitter is a corporation and has been one from the start, but more importantly nobody is forced to use it. People use it because they like it, but frankly, in my opinion and in the opinion of pretty much everyone I know, twitter is mostly crap by a huge margin.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >nobody is forced to use it Social conformity is far more subtly persuasive than outright violence in this day and age. "Choosing" to opt out of corporate ownership is equivalent to a de facto excommunication from society.
  - root_axis 10y ago
    >"Choosing" to opt out of corporate ownership is equivalent to a de facto excommunication from society. Not using twitter isn't an excommunication from society, that's absurd hyperbole that might be a sign you're living in a bubble. I don't use twitter, most people I know don't use it, I'm willing to bet most people on this forum don't use it, which is all totally anecdotal, but the effect size is massive.
    - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
      >Not using twitter isn't an excommunication from society Obviously not, which is why I said "opt[ing] out of corporate ownership" which includes but is not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Google, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft, Apple, Elsevier, etc.

Lambdanaut 10y ago

> if you don't like it, you're totally free to host your own server and content. You're obviously still seeing the world through this fanciful lens of Mom And Pop corporate libertarianism. But there's more to that story. The more power you pour into Mom and Pop, the less they resemble their usual run-of-the-mill town grocer, and the more they become The Town itself in their own right. Corporations are graduating from companies and becoming as powerful or more powerful than many nations. While you roll your eyes, many of us are seeing the greater trend of a world no longer run by countries and constitutions, but by companies and contracts. Worlds where you can't turn around without being faced once again with the company you think it's so easy to just "leave". You say "get out". It's oddly reminiscent of those saying "get out" to those who are upset that their party lost in a contentious political election.

root_axis 10y ago
First of all, I'm not a libertarian, I'm a pretty solid liberal and think the government should regulate corporations when they break the letter or even the spirit of the law or when they harm the market or consumers for profit or otherwise. My objection is to the idea that twitter meets the criteria of harming consumers, because people use the services provided by twitter, for free, of their own volition. Twitter does not provide a unique service that is especially useful or necessary, there are hundreds of other discussion boards and messaging apps on the net, and if someone doesn't like how twitter operates, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to another platform. Compare this with something like the ISPs, where consumers have to choose between one and often no alternative options in order to access internet services which are critical for participation in the economy. Unlike any individual ISP, If twitter disappeared overnight, it would have a minimal impact on the economy, society, or even the internet community in general, as most people would immediately shift over to one of the many alternatives like facebook, snapchat, or the explosion of competitors that would hit the scene or suddenly gain traction within days. Twitter is not powerful, it is a popular messaging app where celebrities post publicly. The government isn't necessary here because consumers are not harmed by twitter sucking.
- chc 10y ago