5 ms·
Whether or not they are governments is a question of definition. Definitions are important, and social networks don't fit very well into it. They are fundament
by pitaj 9y ago
Whether or not they are governments is a question of definition. Definitions are important, and social networks don't fit very well into it.
They are fundamentally different from modern governments as they do not have a monopoly on coercion.
If social media are governments, then every corporation - no, every association of people - on Earth is a government.
- rememberlenny 9y agoThe key here is governance. ------------ I think if you click into the linked post, you get the analogy regarding governments and governance. Web platforms have to concern themselves with governance of their users and the respective eco-system that their users operate on. The point is less to be abstract or symbolic, and instead look at the concrete decisions they have to make. Corporations or general relationships do not have to consider these points to the same degree for survival. In the past, governments would create policies, laws, and make decisions that would determine the well being of a citizen. Now, web platforms are more commonly making decisions of regulation, censorship, interoperability, which all fall in the realm of governments. "So as you watch the large web services evolve, think about how they are balancing the relationship between the state and the private sector? What does Facebook's introduction of Facebook Credits say about its monetary policy? What is Apples foreign policy? Do they act unilaterally promoting their own proprietary standards or do they act multilaterally embracing international standards? What is Twitter's industrial policy? Do they invest in state owned services or encourage decentralized economic development? The choices these platforms make reveal a lot about who they are, and ultimately how well they serve the companies operating in their economies and the citizens who live there." Companies or corporations in general may have a degree of these problems, but not in a way that their survival depends on.
- specialist 9y agoEmphatic agreement. Governance is the final frontier. By that I mean "How are grievances adjudicated?" Any one struggling with the "platforms as government" analogy might think of MMORPGs instead.
- hammock 9y agoThe final frontier is coercion... threat to life and liberty. Saying MMORPG is a government because the game controls the adjudication of your grievances is like saying Macy's is a government because Macy's Customer Service adjudicates your grievances. Except when it doesn't. Except when the FTC, or the FBI, or any other (real) government overrules them.
- nitrogen 9y agoI know this is an old thread, but wanted to note that this is similar to saying that federal courts are not courts because they can be overruled by the supreme court. The existence of more powerful forms of government does not negate the existence of less powerful forms.
- eloff 9y agoI think the analogy is strained. But Facebook wields absolute coercion power inside their platform. Banning posts, pages, accounts, and apps without due process or recourse. My parents run a business on Facebook and they have so many horror stories about the times Facebook has completely held their livelihood hostage. Or cut their revenue 10x with a single algorithm update.
- pitaj 9y agoFacebook wields absolute power over the platform, true. They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. Everyone on Facebook is on there voluntarily. People don't get to choose where they are born. Don't get me wrong. I don't use Facebook, and I don't think anyone else should either. I would love if there were a (decentralized) replacement for it, and I think Facebook is on the way out.
- vanderZwan 9y ago> They do not coerce anyone by exercising that power, though. I think you should elaborate on your definition of coercion here and what does and does not lie within its boundaries.
- pitaj 9y agoCoercion is the initialization of the use of force or fraud against another person or their property. Facebook exercising their power over their own platform is not coercion. People do not own their Facebook pages.
- throwaway2048 9y agothis is untrue in both a moral and legal sense. People absolutely own content they post to facebook.
- txru 9y agoNo, it has shades of truth and untruth. Absolutism isn't a great look on you. You own the content, in the meaning of the sense that you can prevent the public at large from seeing it. You don't own the content, in that you never have physical control over deletion, whether or not facebook employees see the data, or whether or not facebook licenses the use of your data for profitability purposes. All of those strongly detract from any strong concept of ownership.
- manjushri 9y ago>Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Is Facebook a community? If so it would seem it fits the plain dictionary definition.
- pesmhey 9y agoMy household is a government. When I was a kid, I was in a couple of clans in Blizzard games - governments. Sometimes I go out with friends for drinks and we form a short-term government to make decisions. We select a Minister of Transportation, and a Minister of Bar-Choosing. Actually, whenever I start planning my day on a notepad...government of one.
- gowld 9y agoNation-state governments don't have a monopoly on coercion. In the US at least, there are multiple political governments (state and Federal, not to mention HOA). Governments apply coercion across borders, and also residents can leave (most) nation-states.
- Retra 9y agoGovernments are organizations that govern. They don't need a monopoly on coercion to do that.