4 ms·
In a hypothetical future, if Facebook were able to exploit its network effect to the point of having near-100% market share on all private communications, would
by throwaway0255 9y ago
In a hypothetical future, if Facebook were able to exploit its network effect to the point of having near-100% market share on all private communications, would you still defend their right under the constitution to police all private speech in America at their sole discretion?
That's the question that's being asked.
And you can say people can vote with their feet, but what about when "voting with your feet" means permanently and significantly extricating yourself from your family and friends?
> They're more than free to start their own google/fb/apple competitors and gain market share...but good luck with that.
That's exactly the point. Through network effects, these companies have achieved monopolistic market positions on how American citizens communicate with each other.
If we're going by spirit of the law (as we often do with the law out of necessity, especially as technology advances), then clearly the spirit of the first amendment did not intend to nullify itself in a hypothetical future where all communications were privately owned by a handful of corporations.
If the telecoms all decided to put in speech recognition software that automatically terminated phone calls when it detected negative sentiment toward a particular political group or initiative, would you defend that?
What if UPS and FedEx decided to do the same to letters, and return them all to sender or burn them? They have a right to burn letters that criticize their favored candidate, because you agreed to it in the EULA. Don't agree to the EULA? You don't get to receive Amazon packages anymore. Would you defend that?
- valuearb 9y agoThis isn't a science fiction-fantasy short story. Facebook can't control shit. You will always have freedom of speech in your home, and you can always choose a free platform to share your thoughts on, even if you have to build it yourself from open source software. What you actually are describing is government driven tyranny. UPS and FedEx and Facebook have no direct commercial interest in censoring you. The reason they take any interest in your parcels and posts is because our government and our legal system has required them to. They have been made liable if they ship your letter bombs or share your hate speech. If you are afraid of a society where all corporations restrict your rights in concert, you are actually afraid of an overarching government without limits that's stripped you of your rights and uses corporations to extend it's reach. There is actually a name for this type of government, they call it Socialism.
- gremlinsinc 9y agoSocialism is actually an economic concept not a form of government just as Capitalism isn't our form of government, but Republic is. Socialism means pooling resources to get shared commodities for instance: Public roads and Firehouses are socialist programs as is Medicare/Medicaid and single-payer healthcare. I think you're thinking more of Fascism: Definition: Fascism is a way of ruling that advocates total control of the people. ... Fascism comes from the Latin fascio, meaning “bundle, or political group.” In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoIt would be an authoritarian plutocracy. Power is held in the hands of a small group of super rich. Fascism isn't a form of government either, it was the name of Mussolini's party which has since been applied to any authoritarian or nationalist movement.
- valuearb 9y agoAll socialist governments are plutocracies. Witness Venezuala where Chavez divvied up the economy and gave all the pieces to his closest friends. Those in power always enrich themselves just as Putin and his cronies have.
- boomboomsubban 9y agoEven if true, which I don't believe, your own reply points out the problem. Russia isn't socialist country, and pre-socialist Venezuela had a similar rate of corruption. Not all plutocracies are socialist.
- valuearb 9y agoThere is a reason german fascists named their movement National Socialism. Socialism is an economic concept that requires government control for it to be implemented. Socialism is a pre-existing requirement to create a Fascist regime. You might think the US is far from that, but right now we are spending 36% of our GDP on federal, state and local government , and the remaining 64% is heavily regulated and controlled by the government. In fact, you can argue that the federal government already "owns" over 1/3 of all private businesses given it's right to 35% of all their profits.