3 ms·

A real solution to this, which may seem indirect to many, is more aggressive antitrust enforcement. These internet giants have become the new (global) public sq

by IBM 9y ago

A real solution to this, which may seem indirect to many, is more aggressive antitrust enforcement. These internet giants have become the new (global) public square at the expense of all the old world institutions for civic discourse and if that were more fractured I suspect things would be better. Certainly newspapers, magazines and other web publishers would have more bargaining power (and they wouldn't have to ask for their own exemptions from antitrust law [1]). I'm becoming more and more convinced that lax antitrust enforcement since the 1980s is the source of many problems in America today: income inequality, corporate profits at all time highs, capital expenditure seemingly no longer being necessary in the economy to obtain those profits, lack of inflation particularly in wages, and the "de-equitization" of America [2]. Concentration is a problem not just in pure economic terms in terms of higher prices or less innovation but also as a threat to liberal democracy itself (as I've gotten older I've started to take a more political economy approach to things). [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/newspapers-bid-for-antitrust-exemption-to-tackle-google-and-facebook.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/newspapers-bid-for-antitrust... [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-roster-of-public-companies-is-shrinking-before-our-eyes-1483545879 https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-roster-of-public-compa...

eponeponepon 9y ago
Reading into your post, I think you're implying that the presence of a single monolithic target in the Federal Union of Heresland for The Republic of Adversaria to mess with represents a greater risk for carrying out the business of democracy, and that a multitude of smaller social networks would be harder to compromise. I'm not sure how true this is though - inevitably those smaller organisations have lesser resources and capacity to detect and resist such attacks, and would in any case quite quickly balkanise themselves into clear demographics, leaving it obvious to the adversary exactly which of these smaller, more vulnerable organisations to target. The solution in my mind is for these internet giants, regrettably, to get bigger - to become /more/ global, and to be present everywhere. Fragmentation of world society will not bring us progress - consolidation will.
- johndubchak 9y ago
  If I understand your solution, it seems to suggest more global monopolistic size and behavior for the "Internet Giants". Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Separating the social platform from the physical transport platform may change how enforcement is carried out depending on who owns which part, i.e. physical infrastructure being publicly owned vs private etc. Without that type of change and distinction, I'm not sure how your solution is a solution without better understanding it.
  - eponeponepon 9y ago
    Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Well, both. But the distinction is getting less clear as time goes on. And for Joe Public, the distinction doesn't even exist, of course.
- loceng 9y ago
  If there was a centralized platform that allowed social networks on top of it with their own governance powers, could that curtail unwanted issues? Or would that central platform/body be breachable as well - if not, under what conditions would it be safe?

by IBM 9y ago

eponeponepon 9y ago

Reading into your post, I think you're implying that the presence of a single monolithic target in the Federal Union of Heresland for The Republic of Adversaria to mess with represents a greater risk for carrying out the business of democracy, and that a multitude of smaller social networks would be harder to compromise. I'm not sure how true this is though - inevitably those smaller organisations have lesser resources and capacity to detect and resist such attacks, and would in any case quite quickly balkanise themselves into clear demographics, leaving it obvious to the adversary exactly which of these smaller, more vulnerable organisations to target. The solution in my mind is for these internet giants, regrettably, to get bigger - to become /more/ global, and to be present everywhere. Fragmentation of world society will not bring us progress - consolidation will.

johndubchak 9y ago
If I understand your solution, it seems to suggest more global monopolistic size and behavior for the "Internet Giants". Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Separating the social platform from the physical transport platform may change how enforcement is carried out depending on who owns which part, i.e. physical infrastructure being publicly owned vs private etc. Without that type of change and distinction, I'm not sure how your solution is a solution without better understanding it.
- eponeponepon 9y ago
  Do you mean to define "Internet Giants" as the social media platforms or the infrastructure carrying these platforms and traffic? Well, both. But the distinction is getting less clear as time goes on. And for Joe Public, the distinction doesn't even exist, of course.
loceng 9y ago
If there was a centralized platform that allowed social networks on top of it with their own governance powers, could that curtail unwanted issues? Or would that central platform/body be breachable as well - if not, under what conditions would it be safe?