5 ms·
A single communication network with wide reach is very valuable, for exactly this reason. It's not necessary — and I think it's harmful — for that network to b
by gregknicholson 8y ago
A single communication network with wide reach is very valuable, for exactly this reason.
It's not necessary — and I think it's harmful — for that network to be controlled on the whim of one person (assuming you accept that Zuckerberg isn't a robot or a lizard or something).
- dfxm12 8y agoDo you really think Zuckerberg is personally concerned with the "Rare disease - UK" Facebook group to the point where he personally will wipe it out arbitrarily? What if this group was in Reddit and all of a sudden the mod, on a whim, locked all the threads? What if this group met in the local community center and the building owner, on a whim, decided to sell the building to someone who didn't want such groups to meet there? Someone has to be in charge of a "single communication network". If your community owes its existence to it, they are at their whim, and in a way, that's the cost of doing business. This isn't unique to Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg. If the community is strong, they can find a way to overcome such whims.
- gregknicholson 8y ago> Someone has to be in charge of a "single communication network". This is false. Pen, paper, English and walking is a communication network. If there are multiple competing implementations of a shared spec, in practice no one group can control it. (This is why it's important to have multiple competing web browser engines.)