5 ms·
They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do wha
by menacingly 8y ago
They'd better start acting like neutral carriers before government decides it for them. I totally get (and enjoy) the position that a private company can do whatever they like, but there is a scale at which you've enabled a platform with wide enough reach for enough people that restricting its use will be regarded as stifling speech by the only people who matter and who are more than capable of compelling you.
- smt88 8y agoSo if I want a non-neutral carrier, I have to go to a niche social network? Forcing channels like Facebook to be neutral carriers only makes sense if they're a natural monopoly, which they aren't.
- gnode 8y agoArguably, due to the network effect, social networks like Facebook are natural monopolies / oligopolies. Niche networks function in a way that relies less on network effects to have value to users, e.g. it doesn't matter if all your friends aren't on Hacker News.
- d4l3k 8y agoTo be fair, the position of most governments is that Facebook isn't doing enough to censor fake news, hate speech, drug selling etc. I don't think having the government step in is going to fix any of these problems.
- joshuamorton 8y agoWhat scale is that? As far as I know, within the US, fox has wider reach than Facebook, and it's under no such obligation, and the US is perhaps the only nation that's going to force the definition of free speech you propose on Facebook. Europe certainly won't.
- reitanqild 8y agoThere are currently realistic alternatives to fox for anyone. The same cannot be said for Facebook or Google at the moment even if some of us prefer Google+, HN, Twitter and Duckduckgo personally. (That said Duckduckgo can go mainstream soon for what I know and Google+ is IMO constantly one or two good and well timed moves away from eating Facebooks userbase.)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]