4 ms·

Their monopoly is on discourse and dissemination of information. I'm going to sound a bit paternalistic and anti-capitalist here, because I am. Facebook is no

by as300 8y ago

Their monopoly is on discourse and dissemination of information. I'm going to sound a bit paternalistic and anti-capitalist here, because I am. Facebook is no longer just a company, it's an institution that should definitely be regulated. It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. There was plenty of fake information on facebook around the 2016 election that influenced uneducated/uncritical/unintelligent voters' opinions of the candidates. Having content curation guidelines that are informed by non-facebook entities almost certainly is needed, imo.

nopriorarrests 8y ago
> It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. This is the exact reason why Russia blocked (or at least tried to) block Telegram, and why Facebook is banned in China.
wvenable 8y ago
They own the majority means of discourse and dissemination of information? Newpapers? Television networks? Come on. That's not even close to true.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Those other things you list...newspapers, television, networks...they all have a Facebook page and distribute their content through FB. These traditional forms of media are scrambling for likes/comments just as much as the next influencer.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    No business would fail if it didn't have a Facebook page. It's not necessary. Now compare that with Google -- most businesses need to be listed on Google or they will lose significant amount of business. Facebook is nothing by comparison. Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly. No and you don’t need to be a monopoly to violate antitrust laws and engage in anti competitive behavior.
- as300 8y ago
  What percentage of the population can write for a newspaper or appear on TV? When I say dissemination, I'm not just talking about elites. If the average Joe wanted to reach out asany people as they know and tell them something, tell me how they should do it?
  - wvenable 8y ago
    You're doing a fine job right here. But Twitter seems to be a far better option than Facebook for that kind of scenario.
    - as300 8y ago
      Fair point, looking at Facebook as a platform and product I think it has far greater impact than Twitter.
    - crottypeter 8y ago
      Average Joe has a facebook account with a network of friends. They do not have a twitter account let alone any followers (Facebook DAU: 1.5 billion; Twitter DAU: 126 million)
  - as300 8y ago
    And before someone comes and says that I want to police free speech, no. Not at all. I simply want curation which means a set of processes that are followed for certain categories of speech, and the labeling of potential speech as incorrect or untrue. I don't want to lock anybody up for posting fake news (though wouldn't mind if they were banned)
- moate 8y ago
  Newspapers and Television networks have SUBSTANTIAL government regulation and oversight not present in Social Media. If you want to put Facebook on that level that those media types are competition, you need to accept that Facebook now gets greater FCC oversight.

by as300 8y ago

nopriorarrests 8y ago

> It enables the rapid dissemination of societally-impactful information that may or may not be true. This is the exact reason why Russia blocked (or at least tried to) block Telegram, and why Facebook is banned in China.

wvenable 8y ago

They own the majority means of discourse and dissemination of information? Newpapers? Television networks? Come on. That's not even close to true.

will_brown 8y ago
Those other things you list...newspapers, television, networks...they all have a Facebook page and distribute their content through FB. These traditional forms of media are scrambling for likes/comments just as much as the next influencer.
- wvenable 8y ago
  No business would fail if it didn't have a Facebook page. It's not necessary. Now compare that with Google -- most businesses need to be listed on Google or they will lose significant amount of business. Facebook is nothing by comparison. Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >Being popular doesn't make something a monopoly. No and you don’t need to be a monopoly to violate antitrust laws and engage in anti competitive behavior.
as300 8y ago
What percentage of the population can write for a newspaper or appear on TV? When I say dissemination, I'm not just talking about elites. If the average Joe wanted to reach out asany people as they know and tell them something, tell me how they should do it?
- wvenable 8y ago
  You're doing a fine job right here. But Twitter seems to be a far better option than Facebook for that kind of scenario.
  - as300 8y ago
    Fair point, looking at Facebook as a platform and product I think it has far greater impact than Twitter.
  - crottypeter 8y ago
    Average Joe has a facebook account with a network of friends. They do not have a twitter account let alone any followers (Facebook DAU: 1.5 billion; Twitter DAU: 126 million)
- as300 8y ago
  And before someone comes and says that I want to police free speech, no. Not at all. I simply want curation which means a set of processes that are followed for certain categories of speech, and the labeling of potential speech as incorrect or untrue. I don't want to lock anybody up for posting fake news (though wouldn't mind if they were banned)
moate 8y ago
Newspapers and Television networks have SUBSTANTIAL government regulation and oversight not present in Social Media. If you want to put Facebook on that level that those media types are competition, you need to accept that Facebook now gets greater FCC oversight.