9 ms·

No doubt, but that doesn't imply the lessons gleaned from how law applied to company towns are immediately portable to social media.

stcredzero 8y ago
Given the potential for the company to absolutely control discourse within a community, it looks very portable to me.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  No matter how much the definition of monopoly is twisted, I’m sorry, but FaceBook isn’t one. Having the biggest audience and being monopolistic are not the same thing. I’ve never used FaceBook yet here we are talking through a similar medium. I don’t use Twitter, but I can still publish a blog. It’s seriously problematic when people try to redefine words to suit the argument of the day, because the erosion of the language persists and communication breaks down. Nothing about FB is equivalent to living in a town owned by your employer, complete with public services, law enforcement, and grocery stores. YouTube is dominant, because poeple make a totally free choice to use it, not because competition can’t exist. Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly. It’s not as though we’re dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want heat or a running vehicle you do business with them, or get bent!
  - charliesharding 8y ago
    A 15 second google shows the top social media sites based off monthly active users. Tell me an equivalent, viable platform to rival Facebook/Instagram that doesn't share the same political values. https://www.statista.com/statistics/247597/global-traffic-to-leading-us-social-networking-sites/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/247597/global-traffic-to...
    - Pharmakon 8y ago
      Having the biggest audience and being monopolistic are not the same thing. Heinz Ketchup is the utterly dominant brand of ketchup in America by an order of magnitude. They sell more ketchup than every other brand combined in the U.S. and it is not a monopoly. Every attempt to make some new upstart ketchup has failed, and generations are totally sold on just Heinz with a degree of brand loyalty FB would kill to get... and yet they are not a monopoly nor has it been seriously alleged that they are.
      - charliesharding 8y ago
        Right, because it's extremely easy to find other brands that are effective in the same way. A social network's purpose and efficacy is directly related to the number of users in that network. Not at all analogous
        Pharmakon 8y ago
        Not about an analogy, it’s just illustrating the point that market share and monopoly are not synonyms. As to a social network being effective in direct proportion to the number of users, it would really depend on what you want to use it for. Eternal September theory certainly shoots down the general case of your claim though.
        charliesharding 8y ago
        Never claimed they were. "it would really depend on what you want to use it for" It was my understanding that social media platforms were for connecting with people and sharing content/ideas with them. If you're trying to rebut my claim, you're going to have to actually do it, not point to something else and claim that it does.
        Pharmakon 8y ago
        What claim is there to rebut? A 15 second google shows the top social media sites based off monthly active users. Tell me an equivalent, viable platform to rival Facebook/Instagram that doesn't share the same political values. I’m not seeing a claim there, and what you did bring up (marketshare) I’ve responded to. If you want an alternative to mainstream social media, they exist and aren’t as popular, but since we’ve agreed that popularity isn’t monopolistic... who cares?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    No matter how much the definition of monopoly is twisted, I’m sorry, but FaceBook isn’t one. Monopoly isn't important. It's the control of discourse within an entire community which is key. Hell, it's not one entire community these companies control. It's hordes of communities across entire forms of online discourse for huge fractions and even the majority of populations online. YouTube is dominant, because people make a totally free choice to use it, not because competition can’t exist. Due to network effects, effective competition can't exist. This gives YouTube the potential to nearly absolutely control the very broad category of video discourse online. Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly. In 2019, this just seems ridiculous. This has got to change. It’s not as though we’re dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want heat or a running vehicle you do business with them, or get bent! It's as though we're dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want to be a full time political vlogger, you hew to YouTube's rules and politics, or get bent.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - fixermark 8y ago
      You can definitely political vlog by renting space on a CDN to host your own webm's. Or BitTorrenting them and sharing magnet links. Google can't stop you.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Google can't stop you. In 2019, the potent combination is virality/discovery+monetization. Google along with the rest of the SV CEOs and other people of equivalent status can indeed withhold that, despite the wishes of large numbers of people. Just "putting things online" is so 1990's. In 2019, the real power comes from that dynamite combination of virality/discovery+monetization. A 2019 formulation of Free Speech needs to account for that. We saw this before in the 1980's with Manufacturing Consent. The western papers technically weren't censoring like Pravda. But in effect it amounted to the same thing. The litmus test should be: Are there people who want to hear, yet a few are using infrastructure control to stop them? Then Free Speech is being blocked. Are there people who want to pay, yet a few using infrastructure control to stop them? Then Free Speech is being blocked.

stcredzero 8y ago

Given the potential for the company to absolutely control discourse within a community, it looks very portable to me.

Pharmakon 8y ago
No matter how much the definition of monopoly is twisted, I’m sorry, but FaceBook isn’t one. Having the biggest audience and being monopolistic are not the same thing. I’ve never used FaceBook yet here we are talking through a similar medium. I don’t use Twitter, but I can still publish a blog. It’s seriously problematic when people try to redefine words to suit the argument of the day, because the erosion of the language persists and communication breaks down. Nothing about FB is equivalent to living in a town owned by your employer, complete with public services, law enforcement, and grocery stores. YouTube is dominant, because poeple make a totally free choice to use it, not because competition can’t exist. Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly. It’s not as though we’re dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want heat or a running vehicle you do business with them, or get bent!
- charliesharding 8y ago
  A 15 second google shows the top social media sites based off monthly active users. Tell me an equivalent, viable platform to rival Facebook/Instagram that doesn't share the same political values. https://www.statista.com/statistics/247597/global-traffic-to-leading-us-social-networking-sites/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/247597/global-traffic-to...
  - Pharmakon 8y ago
    Having the biggest audience and being monopolistic are not the same thing. Heinz Ketchup is the utterly dominant brand of ketchup in America by an order of magnitude. They sell more ketchup than every other brand combined in the U.S. and it is not a monopoly. Every attempt to make some new upstart ketchup has failed, and generations are totally sold on just Heinz with a degree of brand loyalty FB would kill to get... and yet they are not a monopoly nor has it been seriously alleged that they are.
    - charliesharding 8y ago
      Right, because it's extremely easy to find other brands that are effective in the same way. A social network's purpose and efficacy is directly related to the number of users in that network. Not at all analogous
      - Pharmakon 8y ago
        Not about an analogy, it’s just illustrating the point that market share and monopoly are not synonyms. As to a social network being effective in direct proportion to the number of users, it would really depend on what you want to use it for. Eternal September theory certainly shoots down the general case of your claim though.
        charliesharding 8y ago
        Never claimed they were. "it would really depend on what you want to use it for" It was my understanding that social media platforms were for connecting with people and sharing content/ideas with them. If you're trying to rebut my claim, you're going to have to actually do it, not point to something else and claim that it does.
        Pharmakon 8y ago
        What claim is there to rebut? A 15 second google shows the top social media sites based off monthly active users. Tell me an equivalent, viable platform to rival Facebook/Instagram that doesn't share the same political values. I’m not seeing a claim there, and what you did bring up (marketshare) I’ve responded to. If you want an alternative to mainstream social media, they exist and aren’t as popular, but since we’ve agreed that popularity isn’t monopolistic... who cares?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  No matter how much the definition of monopoly is twisted, I’m sorry, but FaceBook isn’t one. Monopoly isn't important. It's the control of discourse within an entire community which is key. Hell, it's not one entire community these companies control. It's hordes of communities across entire forms of online discourse for huge fractions and even the majority of populations online. YouTube is dominant, because people make a totally free choice to use it, not because competition can’t exist. Due to network effects, effective competition can't exist. This gives YouTube the potential to nearly absolutely control the very broad category of video discourse online. Nothing about being dominant in a market or network effects directly implies a monopoly. In 2019, this just seems ridiculous. This has got to change. It’s not as though we’re dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want heat or a running vehicle you do business with them, or get bent! It's as though we're dealing with Standard Oil, and if you want to be a full time political vlogger, you hew to YouTube's rules and politics, or get bent.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - fixermark 8y ago
    You can definitely political vlog by renting space on a CDN to host your own webm's. Or BitTorrenting them and sharing magnet links. Google can't stop you.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Google can't stop you. In 2019, the potent combination is virality/discovery+monetization. Google along with the rest of the SV CEOs and other people of equivalent status can indeed withhold that, despite the wishes of large numbers of people. Just "putting things online" is so 1990's. In 2019, the real power comes from that dynamite combination of virality/discovery+monetization. A 2019 formulation of Free Speech needs to account for that. We saw this before in the 1980's with Manufacturing Consent. The western papers technically weren't censoring like Pravda. But in effect it amounted to the same thing. The litmus test should be: Are there people who want to hear, yet a few are using infrastructure control to stop them? Then Free Speech is being blocked. Are there people who want to pay, yet a few using infrastructure control to stop them? Then Free Speech is being blocked.