13 ms·

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government,

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a following. If they didn't exist, alternative services would spring up. But alternative services know they can't compete with FB/YouTube/Twitter, so none exist. When people say "if you don't like FB's rules, use another service" it ignores that Facebook is the reason there isn't another service and thus has some responsibility to uphold values we've collectively decided as a society are important. The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer.

throwawayjava 7y ago
> ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life. FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms. [1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch for more than it costs to produce the commentary.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawayjava 7y ago
    > But the people celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - were also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Do you have any data on this question? Or is this just a blind assumption that "people who disagree with me on X probably also disagree with me about Y"?
  - tomohawk 7y ago
    To clarify, the baker had no problem providing a cake. The problem was compelling speech on the part of the baker to write certain things on the cake.
  - notafraudster 7y ago
    You can have it both ways. Positions can be motivated either by process out outcome. A process position is "businesses should/should not be able to deny service to people based on <whatever dispute>". An outcome position is "We should protect gay couples and not white supremacists". You might not agree with the particular position, you might prefer developing supposedly content-neutral process positions, but many people think that the design of rules and systems is merely a means to getting to what they view as correct ends. Your position is a bit like saying "Some people claim they're OK with the US/UK having nuclear weapons, but not North Korea. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want charities to be tax exempt but not businesses. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want gun control for civilians but not for the military. Can't have it both ways." Yes, many policies apply differently to different people for different reasons! That's a good thing.
    - 0x445442 7y ago
      Good arguments can be made that both charities and businesses should be tax exempt. As a sovereign nation, NK should be allowed nuclear weapons if China has them. And the US shouldn't have a standing army, at least if we're being governed by the rules of or founders. All your examples ultimately boil down to force and have little to do with what ought to be.
- bsder 7y ago
  > FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. And, yet, content creators must upload their content to YouTube or someone else will--even if they host it somewhere else. Therefore, YouTube is either a monopoly or a bad-faith actor--your choice--and we will, unfortunately, need laws to bring YouTube to heel.
  - verall 7y ago
    You can pre-register with content-id and then aggressively dmca. I'm not saying it's fun or easy just that there are totally songs and artists that are completely scrubbed from youtube.
    - bsder 7y ago
      So, I, as a content creator, have to give my information to YouTube, whom I actively avoided in the first place, as well as spend an active part of my day policing rather than creating in order to prevent YouTube from monetizing my content? And no part of this statement strikes you as a problem?
      - logosmonkey 7y ago
        At least there's an option. Sure there's a problem but at least there's some level of ability to rectify. PDfs of my work show up on pirate sites who make money from ads all the time and I have little to no ability whatsoever to correct that. That's just doing business in the current economy. You either have to ignore it or actively deal with it. Neither option will totally eliminate it.
ilikehurdles 7y ago
> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter's existence. Monopolies of online discourse? Attention? Entertainment? Clearly we're not using any of those platforms now.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  I'm not fully thought out on this, but I think a decent starting analogy would be to a public square or space in a city. These companies hold a monopoly on the online equivalent of that because of the way network effects work.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - simongr3dal 7y ago
    In someway these social networks amplify voices by their sharing and recommending and suggesting based on what users do, a normal city square doesn't amplify your voice. So this is different from walking past a demonstration or assembly in the city, it is more of an Inception movie-like warping of the entire city to bring everyone closer to these peoples voices.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > these social networks amplify voices by their sharing and recommending and suggesting based on what users do, a normal city square doesn't amplify your voice. Actually, a city square does exactly that, amplify your voice to all those that pass. The difference is that there are many city squares to stand in, whereas there are only a handful of social media companies. The problem here is Facebook's monopoly power, not the medium of communication.
marme 7y ago
the important thing everyone misses is that these platforms claim protection from liability on what is post because they claim they dont control what users post. So they user the 1st amendment and claim to just be a platform for everyone to speak but then they choose who gets to speak. If the new york times posts a libelous article written by a freelancer they still get sued because they choose to run the article. How is it different with facebook if they are choosing who can be members?
- golemiprague 7y ago
  Exactly, they are either platform or a content provider, they have to decide rather than claim the benefits from both sides but not the obligations.
Pils 7y ago
> The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer. By acceding to public pressure, doesn't that demonstrate that these "market leaders" don't actually get to decide what content they host? FB/YT/Twitter/Reddit have consistently dragged their feet on removing extremist content. I think the last couple years have been proof that a laissez-faire model of governing the online public sphere has been a spectacular failure.
- toofy 7y ago
  > ...to public pressure, doesn’t that demonstrate that these “market leaders” don’t actually get to decide what content they host? This is a strange way to frame what businesses do every single day. If a business believes a certain product is unethical or that the product wont sell very well, they choose not to peddle that product. This is a determination just about every business deals with on a regular basis.
tomohawk 7y ago
Monopolies do not get to just call themselves a private concern, able to do what they want. We only tolerate monopolies with suitable regulation. For example, we do not allow water, electricity, or other things provided by monopolies to be cut by a company when the company disagrees with the customer's political or other views. In addition, the US federal government only exists to protect the innumerable rights of US citizens. Some of these rights are enumerated in the constitution. It is therefore well within the scope of the federal government to protect citizens against bully companies like Facebook who are infringing on these rights.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  it's the other way around. Facebook has always been a private concern. At some point it became an effective monopoly. That doesn't stop it from continuing to be a private concern. The process of going from private concern to public concern is called "nationalisation"; the government forcibly buys out the shareholders of Facebook and runs it as a public asset. The shareholders of Facebook are entitled to run their company as they see fit. Because they own it. Like you can paint the walls of your house whatever colour you like, and if visitors don't like it, then that's their problem. If we think that Facebook has grown too powerful and intrusive into society to be governed by its shareholders, then nationalisation is completely the correct way to go. Of course, which nation gets to buy Facebook is another concern... given its global reach, is it really appropriate for the US government to own it? Should the UN "globalise" it instead of the US "nationalising" it?
  - thatcat 7y ago
    If 4 billion people are in your house, is it really still your house?
    - dblotsky 7y ago
      Yeah, just with 4 billion people in it. The analogy also doesn’t work because it’s impossible to have 4 billion people in your house.
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
golemiprague 7y ago
Not only that they are monopolies they are also the modern time public square. But we do have to also exempt them from responsibility to the content advertised the same way a municipality is not responsible to something someone say in a public square. There is also the issue of how to differentiate a virtual public square and a virtual non public square, like a forum for a specific age, topic, age limit etc. The legislators should come up with a comprehensive laws to regulate this (not so) new era of virtual discussion.
analognoise 7y ago
"Free software" people build whole operating systems, but Facebook owes you access to what they built because they're good at it? I don't NEED Facebook for modern life, neither do you. There's PLENTY of competition for online social networks. Go use one of those. Or go outside, FFS.
scarface74 7y ago
Anyone can set up a website, create an email list, etc., do some guerrilla marketing the old fashion way. If their followers were truly that in love with them, surely they can find a way to fund their own website.
- simongr3dal 7y ago
  I might be playing the devil's advocate a little bit now, but If what these people are saying is truly that toxic that they can be excluded from facebook, twitter, podcast directories, etc. If they really do incite violence and harrasment and spread misinformation. What's stopping them from ending up like the daily stormer, being "deplatformed" from cloudflare, or ending up like the pirate bay, being blocked by a lot of ISPs world wide? Or maybe they just deserve it if they can garner enough attention and infamy to get themselves blocked from a hosting company.
- dx87 7y ago
  Until the their payment processors refuse to do business with them due to political pressure. I guess they could accept money orders or cryptocurrency, but services are centralized to the point that "just create your own website" isn't a simple solution any more.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Even though I don’t care either way about these people, it does bother me that ISPs could take away their access. If I had controversial views where I couldn’t find anyone to host my site, I could set up a few servers in my home. Someone somewhere would give me basic DNS. I guess they could still make money via personal appearances? Farrakhan at least has shown he knows how to get his word out without the Internet.
  - MrMember 7y ago
    Or their domain registrar drops them. And their hosting company. And their ISP doesn't allow them to self host. And then they're effectively blackballed from the internet.
SantalBlush 7y ago
I have little sympathy for free-market-leaning personalities who feel the sting of market forces with regard to censorship. They essentially want these platforms to be regulated like utilities, all while they simultaneously disparage utilities.
- brigandish 7y ago
  A lot of people who support the notion of free markets also support there being some regulation, especially for things like monopolies (which end up distorting markets until they resemble unfree ones). It’s a spectrum, not black and white.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    Just to make sure we're on the same page, by "free-market-leaning" I mean opposing government regulations in markets. Advocating for some regulation is generally not considered supportive of a free market; on the contrary, that's just supportive of a market.
    - brigandish 7y ago
      That’s what I thought you meant, and I think that’s a mischaracterisation of the group in question and of those more generally who say they’re advocates of free markets. Are any of them not against slavery on the basis it’s unfree? (based on your definition) Small or limited government is usually the given position, vague as that may be, not zero government.
      - SantalBlush 7y ago
        It's not a mischaracterization. Free market proponents believe that markets will reach an equilibrium on their own if left alone, and they believe that monopolies are caused by regulation (regulatory capture). This line of thinking is often (but not always) rooted in the Austrian school of economics. If someone is telling you that they support free markets and they also support government regulation, they don't understand what they're saying.
rco8786 7y ago
I’m curious what definition of monopoly you’re using here
Retra 7y ago
The answer is to break up the monopoly (assuming it really is one.) Then it doesn't matter so much if they boot people off their platform.
anthony_doan 7y ago
Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules. In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Fighting words is a thing (it's actually a term), verbal harassment is a thing, etc... Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. He was free to say what he wants and then he got ban for inciting unsavory actions. To be real fair here, I'm pretty dang sure in Facebook's ToS, they have something like no porn allow. Nobody blink an eye on that because that make sense and it's probably some where in the ToS (terms of service). Yet here we got a guy that's advocating his listeners to harass people and a vocal minority of Americans are all up in arm about it. He most likely violated some rules in the ToS.
- stOneskull 7y ago
  that was ages ago. he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times, including the recent joe rogan talk. can people not make mistakes? once we're wrong, are we always wrong?
  - anthony_doan 7y ago
    > can people not make mistakes? I'm sure everyone make mistakes. I'm not entirely sure if people have made mistake where they stated the the death of children were just a plot to take away guns, that those where child actors and then before I continue I would like to briefly talk about my InforWar products. Buy this rape whistle to support InfoWar. Oh where was I? Right, making money off of the dead kids. And you're saying this as if this is the only outrageous incidents he have done. I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions.
    - tortasaur 7y ago
      > I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. > Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions. Of course they wouldn't, but I don't see why this is a point you would like to make. They would face the potential for real-life backlash if any of many mobs prowling the internet noticed their comment. You can post safely because you're voicing a majority-held opinion. I'm not seeing the link between "there are people actively seeking to ruin the lives of those holding thoughts like yours" and "what you're saying is incorrect". The mob is always right?
Consultant32452 7y ago
Let's not forget that the SCOTUS has ruled Twitter is an official communications platform of the White House. Therefore Trump is not able to block people. It's a weird legal ruling, and it's hard to imagine this doesn't have implications for the rest of us. Can Twitter block you from participating in official White House communications?
- tropo 7y ago
  It's more than weird. It's a crazy ruling. The press room in the Whitehouse is an official communications platform of the White House. With that ruling as precedent, can I barge in there? I can even behave better than Jim Acosta.
- belltaco 7y ago
  I think the difference is that you can still read Trump's tweets if you're banned from Twitter, but you cannot read Trump's tweets if you're blocked by Trump on Twitter. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCNIGiUUIAALZrR.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCNIGiUUIAALZrR.jpg
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    What is the difference between viewing Trump's tweets while logged out because Trump blocked you, and viewing Trump's tweets while logged out because Twitter banned you?
  - razius 7y ago
    But you cannot participate in the discussion, that's the point.
taytus 7y ago
Freedom of speech != Freedom of reach
- vageli 7y ago
  > Freedom of speech != Freedom of reach Can you explain what you mean by this?
  - Shish2k 7y ago
    You can yell whatever you like, but nobody is obligated to sell you a megaphone
    - brigandish 7y ago
      Could that be extended to "You can yell whatever you like, but nobody is obligated to sell you water"? My point being, why should what you say be of any concern to the seller? Unless, of course, they're trying to control the conversation. If they were, well, that would be really sinister.
- brigandish 7y ago
  If you deny someone their freedom to speak then you deny others their freedom to choose to hear that speech. Hence, this is a freedom of speech issue.
  - logosmonkey 7y ago
    When newspapers and nightly news were the main purveyors of news content should they have been forced to allow anyone with an opinion to air it publicly? I don't think so and I'm not sure I see much difference here. Those who weren't part of the establishment that wanted their voices heard made their own papers and shows, those banned from facebook/twitter/youtube can do the same.
    - brigandish 7y ago
      No, they should not have forced to allow all comers to air an opinion (not that that would necessarily have been a bad thing), but the situation you've given is one of a time with healthy competition between a plurality of media outlets. If any one of them a) was a monopoly in its sector, and b) was also providing a platform initially to anyone that wanted one, then I would agree with the comparison. Considering the Patreon fuss and now Mastercard's "human rights committee", it's not only "build your own website", it's rapidly moving towards "build your own bank". It's not realistic.
stOneskull 7y ago
i think it sucks that people celebrate the bans. like loving big brother.
IgorPartola 7y ago
Philosophically, there are philosophies that state that when a person causes too many headaches for a society, that society has the right to kill that person. InfoWars is garbage meant to sell you tactical ass wipes (yes, really, google it). Who gives a crap if they aren’t allowed on Facebook? Why do you want them to gain a following?
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Are you seriously advocating for the murder of people who are "headaches"? Most people in the right are headaches too, do they deserve deplatforming? Whistleblowers? You describe something a shade worse than facism.
speedplane 7y ago
> Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government..." ... Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. For this reason, I see Facebook's blocking of specific voices as a potentially positive trend. There used to be a credible hypothesis that social media platforms could be neutral, many hoped this would be the case. However, it's now becoming clear that the hypothesis is wrong. Social media platforms are not neutral, nor should they be. If Fox News can cater to pro-Trump voices, and NY Times can cater to pro-democrat voices, Facebook and other social media companies should also be allowed to regulate the content on their platform. The fact that Facebook is now taking an editorial stand, and rejects the premise of being the platform for everyone, will allow other companies to fill the remaining space. I look forward to the day when Facebook chooses to focus on sharing family photos and inconsequential personal minutiae, and delegates all politics and news to other services.
- logosmonkey 7y ago
  Hell, if Facebook can do that I might actually use it again.
threatofrain 7y ago
I don't care if Facebook is a monopoly -- they are an advertising business and their incentives are fundamentally misaligned to serve as a public institution. Even if they weren't a monopoly, if they were the darling of the world in terms of PR, they're still the wrong organization to serve public needs. If people think we should have digital public spaces, then we should be paying for it as a public. We have parks and plazas where people can congregate, so why not government funded servers for hosting chat?
- exergy 7y ago
  Nailed it. Fundamentally, this is the first thing that needs to be said about the subject.
Eleopteryx 7y ago
>should get to decide who can use their product Semantically it's not a question of "who can use their product" it's a question of in what fashion are users permitted to use their product, what behaviors are/n't allowed on that platform. Facebook didn't institute or enforce a "no Louis Farrakhans" policy. They set boundaries on what kind of behavior is or isn't acceptable for continued membership and participation on their platform, e.g. no anti-semitism. Even a free-speech shithole like 4chan has a distinct moderation policy for each individual board. There have to be rules for a social/discussion platform to serve an intended purpose, otherwise the platform becomes repurposed by its users or ceases to have any purpose to anyone. If Facebook can't dictate its policies they can't dictate what shape the platform takes. But the fact that it has dictated its own form is why it's Facebook. That is to say, perhaps Facebook couldn't be the platform on which people wanted to post anti-semitic content, if it didn't actively purge such content from its platform. If Facebook can't dictate what kinds of content are healthy for their platform then there could very well not be a Facebook at all.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
achenatx 7y ago
The people getting banned are famous, this is exactly the moment when another platform can allow those people their speech and make a dent in facebook's monopoly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
koonsolo 7y ago
Monopoly? Let's see how these platforms will hold up against all the distributed platforms like DTube, DLive, Mastodon, etc. The tighter the rules get for these traditional platforms, the more push there is towards distributed platforms. Do you want to earn your livelihood from a platform that can kick you out at any time with any rule they want? The new EU rules of Article 13 will make the push even stronger. Because it's not only up to the platforms anymore. You want to serve EU citizens? You need to make damn sure to put in filters that lean towards false-negatives. Interesting times up ahead.
wdr1 7y ago
> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They're not monopolies, they're just expedient ways to reach larger audiences. There's a difference. A lot of clones do exist. They would just leave it the content creator to bring their audience. If anything, there's now a danger that the platforms that cater to the fringe now start to gain traction, as some of these figures do bring with them a sizable audience of their own.
- balt_s 7y ago
  > A lot of clones do exist. Name three.
onewhonknocks 7y ago
No, they are not monopolies. Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted." In this case, the supply of a good or service (social networking, webpage indexing and searching) are not controlled by Facebook and Google because they aren't finite resources. Anyone can index the web and anyone can build a social network and Google/Facebook aren't going to crush you with lawsuits or some other nefarious tactic to maintain their position (AFAIK). Entry of new producers of these services is not prevented or highly restricted. New social networks and search engines pop up all the time. What Facebook and Google have is massive, large scale user loyalty. Despite alternatives existing (Bing, Mastadon, DuckDuckGo, Myspace, etc.), users are voluntarily choosing to use Google and Facebook. This is not a monopoly. I think we may need a new term for this situation.
dingo_bat 7y ago
This is exactly right. This is the reason I am against implementing net neutrality as people currently think about it. Actual net neutrality would include monopoly online platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Google. They should not be allowed to shut off people based on their opinions. They should be forced to adhere to a standard closer to that prescribed for government. If that is unacceptable to you, it should be unacceptable to force internet providers to provide a completely neutral internet, too.
raarts 7y ago
In the recent case Packingham v. North Carolina the Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, decided social media to be the new public square. See this article for why banning people from social media will be impossible in the near future. https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civil-right/ https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...

throwawayjava 7y ago

> ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life. FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms. [1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch for more than it costs to produce the commentary.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawayjava 7y ago
  > But the people celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - were also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Do you have any data on this question? Or is this just a blind assumption that "people who disagree with me on X probably also disagree with me about Y"?
- tomohawk 7y ago
  To clarify, the baker had no problem providing a cake. The problem was compelling speech on the part of the baker to write certain things on the cake.
- notafraudster 7y ago
  You can have it both ways. Positions can be motivated either by process out outcome. A process position is "businesses should/should not be able to deny service to people based on <whatever dispute>". An outcome position is "We should protect gay couples and not white supremacists". You might not agree with the particular position, you might prefer developing supposedly content-neutral process positions, but many people think that the design of rules and systems is merely a means to getting to what they view as correct ends. Your position is a bit like saying "Some people claim they're OK with the US/UK having nuclear weapons, but not North Korea. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want charities to be tax exempt but not businesses. Can't have it both ways." or "Some people want gun control for civilians but not for the military. Can't have it both ways." Yes, many policies apply differently to different people for different reasons! That's a good thing.
  - 0x445442 7y ago
    Good arguments can be made that both charities and businesses should be tax exempt. As a sovereign nation, NK should be allowed nuclear weapons if China has them. And the US shouldn't have a standing army, at least if we're being governed by the rules of or founders. All your examples ultimately boil down to force and have little to do with what ought to be.
bsder 7y ago
> FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. And, yet, content creators must upload their content to YouTube or someone else will--even if they host it somewhere else. Therefore, YouTube is either a monopoly or a bad-faith actor--your choice--and we will, unfortunately, need laws to bring YouTube to heel.
- verall 7y ago
  You can pre-register with content-id and then aggressively dmca. I'm not saying it's fun or easy just that there are totally songs and artists that are completely scrubbed from youtube.
  - bsder 7y ago
    So, I, as a content creator, have to give my information to YouTube, whom I actively avoided in the first place, as well as spend an active part of my day policing rather than creating in order to prevent YouTube from monetizing my content? And no part of this statement strikes you as a problem?
    - logosmonkey 7y ago
      At least there's an option. Sure there's a problem but at least there's some level of ability to rectify. PDfs of my work show up on pirate sites who make money from ads all the time and I have little to no ability whatsoever to correct that. That's just doing business in the current economy. You either have to ignore it or actively deal with it. Neither option will totally eliminate it.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter's existence. Monopolies of online discourse? Attention? Entertainment? Clearly we're not using any of those platforms now.

toasterlovin 7y ago
I'm not fully thought out on this, but I think a decent starting analogy would be to a public square or space in a city. These companies hold a monopoly on the online equivalent of that because of the way network effects work.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- simongr3dal 7y ago
  In someway these social networks amplify voices by their sharing and recommending and suggesting based on what users do, a normal city square doesn't amplify your voice. So this is different from walking past a demonstration or assembly in the city, it is more of an Inception movie-like warping of the entire city to bring everyone closer to these peoples voices.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > these social networks amplify voices by their sharing and recommending and suggesting based on what users do, a normal city square doesn't amplify your voice. Actually, a city square does exactly that, amplify your voice to all those that pass. The difference is that there are many city squares to stand in, whereas there are only a handful of social media companies. The problem here is Facebook's monopoly power, not the medium of communication.

marme 7y ago

the important thing everyone misses is that these platforms claim protection from liability on what is post because they claim they dont control what users post. So they user the 1st amendment and claim to just be a platform for everyone to speak but then they choose who gets to speak. If the new york times posts a libelous article written by a freelancer they still get sued because they choose to run the article. How is it different with facebook if they are choosing who can be members?

golemiprague 7y ago
Exactly, they are either platform or a content provider, they have to decide rather than claim the benefits from both sides but not the obligations.

Pils 7y ago

> The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer. By acceding to public pressure, doesn't that demonstrate that these "market leaders" don't actually get to decide what content they host? FB/YT/Twitter/Reddit have consistently dragged their feet on removing extremist content. I think the last couple years have been proof that a laissez-faire model of governing the online public sphere has been a spectacular failure.

toofy 7y ago
> ...to public pressure, doesn’t that demonstrate that these “market leaders” don’t actually get to decide what content they host? This is a strange way to frame what businesses do every single day. If a business believes a certain product is unethical or that the product wont sell very well, they choose not to peddle that product. This is a determination just about every business deals with on a regular basis.

tomohawk 7y ago

Monopolies do not get to just call themselves a private concern, able to do what they want. We only tolerate monopolies with suitable regulation. For example, we do not allow water, electricity, or other things provided by monopolies to be cut by a company when the company disagrees with the customer's political or other views. In addition, the US federal government only exists to protect the innumerable rights of US citizens. Some of these rights are enumerated in the constitution. It is therefore well within the scope of the federal government to protect citizens against bully companies like Facebook who are infringing on these rights.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
it's the other way around. Facebook has always been a private concern. At some point it became an effective monopoly. That doesn't stop it from continuing to be a private concern. The process of going from private concern to public concern is called "nationalisation"; the government forcibly buys out the shareholders of Facebook and runs it as a public asset. The shareholders of Facebook are entitled to run their company as they see fit. Because they own it. Like you can paint the walls of your house whatever colour you like, and if visitors don't like it, then that's their problem. If we think that Facebook has grown too powerful and intrusive into society to be governed by its shareholders, then nationalisation is completely the correct way to go. Of course, which nation gets to buy Facebook is another concern... given its global reach, is it really appropriate for the US government to own it? Should the UN "globalise" it instead of the US "nationalising" it?
- thatcat 7y ago
  If 4 billion people are in your house, is it really still your house?
  - dblotsky 7y ago
    Yeah, just with 4 billion people in it. The analogy also doesn’t work because it’s impossible to have 4 billion people in your house.
- 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

golemiprague 7y ago

Not only that they are monopolies they are also the modern time public square. But we do have to also exempt them from responsibility to the content advertised the same way a municipality is not responsible to something someone say in a public square. There is also the issue of how to differentiate a virtual public square and a virtual non public square, like a forum for a specific age, topic, age limit etc. The legislators should come up with a comprehensive laws to regulate this (not so) new era of virtual discussion.

analognoise 7y ago

"Free software" people build whole operating systems, but Facebook owes you access to what they built because they're good at it? I don't NEED Facebook for modern life, neither do you. There's PLENTY of competition for online social networks. Go use one of those. Or go outside, FFS.

scarface74 7y ago

Anyone can set up a website, create an email list, etc., do some guerrilla marketing the old fashion way. If their followers were truly that in love with them, surely they can find a way to fund their own website.

simongr3dal 7y ago
I might be playing the devil's advocate a little bit now, but If what these people are saying is truly that toxic that they can be excluded from facebook, twitter, podcast directories, etc. If they really do incite violence and harrasment and spread misinformation. What's stopping them from ending up like the daily stormer, being "deplatformed" from cloudflare, or ending up like the pirate bay, being blocked by a lot of ISPs world wide? Or maybe they just deserve it if they can garner enough attention and infamy to get themselves blocked from a hosting company.
dx87 7y ago
Until the their payment processors refuse to do business with them due to political pressure. I guess they could accept money orders or cryptocurrency, but services are centralized to the point that "just create your own website" isn't a simple solution any more.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Even though I don’t care either way about these people, it does bother me that ISPs could take away their access. If I had controversial views where I couldn’t find anyone to host my site, I could set up a few servers in my home. Someone somewhere would give me basic DNS. I guess they could still make money via personal appearances? Farrakhan at least has shown he knows how to get his word out without the Internet.
- MrMember 7y ago
  Or their domain registrar drops them. And their hosting company. And their ISP doesn't allow them to self host. And then they're effectively blackballed from the internet.

SantalBlush 7y ago

I have little sympathy for free-market-leaning personalities who feel the sting of market forces with regard to censorship. They essentially want these platforms to be regulated like utilities, all while they simultaneously disparage utilities.

brigandish 7y ago
A lot of people who support the notion of free markets also support there being some regulation, especially for things like monopolies (which end up distorting markets until they resemble unfree ones). It’s a spectrum, not black and white.
- SantalBlush 7y ago
  Just to make sure we're on the same page, by "free-market-leaning" I mean opposing government regulations in markets. Advocating for some regulation is generally not considered supportive of a free market; on the contrary, that's just supportive of a market.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    That’s what I thought you meant, and I think that’s a mischaracterisation of the group in question and of those more generally who say they’re advocates of free markets. Are any of them not against slavery on the basis it’s unfree? (based on your definition) Small or limited government is usually the given position, vague as that may be, not zero government.
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      It's not a mischaracterization. Free market proponents believe that markets will reach an equilibrium on their own if left alone, and they believe that monopolies are caused by regulation (regulatory capture). This line of thinking is often (but not always) rooted in the Austrian school of economics. If someone is telling you that they support free markets and they also support government regulation, they don't understand what they're saying.

rco8786 7y ago

I’m curious what definition of monopoly you’re using here

Retra 7y ago

The answer is to break up the monopoly (assuming it really is one.) Then it doesn't matter so much if they boot people off their platform.

anthony_doan 7y ago

Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules. In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Fighting words is a thing (it's actually a term), verbal harassment is a thing, etc... Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. He was free to say what he wants and then he got ban for inciting unsavory actions. To be real fair here, I'm pretty dang sure in Facebook's ToS, they have something like no porn allow. Nobody blink an eye on that because that make sense and it's probably some where in the ToS (terms of service). Yet here we got a guy that's advocating his listeners to harass people and a vocal minority of Americans are all up in arm about it. He most likely violated some rules in the ToS.

stOneskull 7y ago
that was ages ago. he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times, including the recent joe rogan talk. can people not make mistakes? once we're wrong, are we always wrong?
- anthony_doan 7y ago
  > can people not make mistakes? I'm sure everyone make mistakes. I'm not entirely sure if people have made mistake where they stated the the death of children were just a plot to take away guns, that those where child actors and then before I continue I would like to briefly talk about my InforWar products. Buy this rape whistle to support InfoWar. Oh where was I? Right, making money off of the dead kids. And you're saying this as if this is the only outrageous incidents he have done. I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions.
  - tortasaur 7y ago
    > I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name. > Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions. Of course they wouldn't, but I don't see why this is a point you would like to make. They would face the potential for real-life backlash if any of many mobs prowling the internet noticed their comment. You can post safely because you're voicing a majority-held opinion. I'm not seeing the link between "there are people actively seeking to ruin the lives of those holding thoughts like yours" and "what you're saying is incorrect". The mob is always right?

Consultant32452 7y ago

Let's not forget that the SCOTUS has ruled Twitter is an official communications platform of the White House. Therefore Trump is not able to block people. It's a weird legal ruling, and it's hard to imagine this doesn't have implications for the rest of us. Can Twitter block you from participating in official White House communications?

tropo 7y ago
It's more than weird. It's a crazy ruling. The press room in the Whitehouse is an official communications platform of the White House. With that ruling as precedent, can I barge in there? I can even behave better than Jim Acosta.
belltaco 7y ago
I think the difference is that you can still read Trump's tweets if you're banned from Twitter, but you cannot read Trump's tweets if you're blocked by Trump on Twitter. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCNIGiUUIAALZrR.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCNIGiUUIAALZrR.jpg
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  What is the difference between viewing Trump's tweets while logged out because Trump blocked you, and viewing Trump's tweets while logged out because Twitter banned you?
- razius 7y ago
  But you cannot participate in the discussion, that's the point.

taytus 7y ago

Freedom of speech != Freedom of reach

vageli 7y ago
> Freedom of speech != Freedom of reach Can you explain what you mean by this?
- Shish2k 7y ago
  You can yell whatever you like, but nobody is obligated to sell you a megaphone
  - brigandish 7y ago
    Could that be extended to "You can yell whatever you like, but nobody is obligated to sell you water"? My point being, why should what you say be of any concern to the seller? Unless, of course, they're trying to control the conversation. If they were, well, that would be really sinister.
brigandish 7y ago
If you deny someone their freedom to speak then you deny others their freedom to choose to hear that speech. Hence, this is a freedom of speech issue.
- logosmonkey 7y ago
  When newspapers and nightly news were the main purveyors of news content should they have been forced to allow anyone with an opinion to air it publicly? I don't think so and I'm not sure I see much difference here. Those who weren't part of the establishment that wanted their voices heard made their own papers and shows, those banned from facebook/twitter/youtube can do the same.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    No, they should not have forced to allow all comers to air an opinion (not that that would necessarily have been a bad thing), but the situation you've given is one of a time with healthy competition between a plurality of media outlets. If any one of them a) was a monopoly in its sector, and b) was also providing a platform initially to anyone that wanted one, then I would agree with the comparison. Considering the Patreon fuss and now Mastercard's "human rights committee", it's not only "build your own website", it's rapidly moving towards "build your own bank". It's not realistic.

stOneskull 7y ago

i think it sucks that people celebrate the bans. like loving big brother.

IgorPartola 7y ago

Philosophically, there are philosophies that state that when a person causes too many headaches for a society, that society has the right to kill that person. InfoWars is garbage meant to sell you tactical ass wipes (yes, really, google it). Who gives a crap if they aren’t allowed on Facebook? Why do you want them to gain a following?

whenchamenia 7y ago
Are you seriously advocating for the murder of people who are "headaches"? Most people in the right are headaches too, do they deserve deplatforming? Whistleblowers? You describe something a shade worse than facism.

speedplane 7y ago

> Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government..." ... Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. For this reason, I see Facebook's blocking of specific voices as a potentially positive trend. There used to be a credible hypothesis that social media platforms could be neutral, many hoped this would be the case. However, it's now becoming clear that the hypothesis is wrong. Social media platforms are not neutral, nor should they be. If Fox News can cater to pro-Trump voices, and NY Times can cater to pro-democrat voices, Facebook and other social media companies should also be allowed to regulate the content on their platform. The fact that Facebook is now taking an editorial stand, and rejects the premise of being the platform for everyone, will allow other companies to fill the remaining space. I look forward to the day when Facebook chooses to focus on sharing family photos and inconsequential personal minutiae, and delegates all politics and news to other services.

logosmonkey 7y ago
Hell, if Facebook can do that I might actually use it again.

threatofrain 7y ago

I don't care if Facebook is a monopoly -- they are an advertising business and their incentives are fundamentally misaligned to serve as a public institution. Even if they weren't a monopoly, if they were the darling of the world in terms of PR, they're still the wrong organization to serve public needs. If people think we should have digital public spaces, then we should be paying for it as a public. We have parks and plazas where people can congregate, so why not government funded servers for hosting chat?

exergy 7y ago
Nailed it. Fundamentally, this is the first thing that needs to be said about the subject.

Eleopteryx 7y ago

>should get to decide who can use their product Semantically it's not a question of "who can use their product" it's a question of in what fashion are users permitted to use their product, what behaviors are/n't allowed on that platform. Facebook didn't institute or enforce a "no Louis Farrakhans" policy. They set boundaries on what kind of behavior is or isn't acceptable for continued membership and participation on their platform, e.g. no anti-semitism. Even a free-speech shithole like 4chan has a distinct moderation policy for each individual board. There have to be rules for a social/discussion platform to serve an intended purpose, otherwise the platform becomes repurposed by its users or ceases to have any purpose to anyone. If Facebook can't dictate its policies they can't dictate what shape the platform takes. But the fact that it has dictated its own form is why it's Facebook. That is to say, perhaps Facebook couldn't be the platform on which people wanted to post anti-semitic content, if it didn't actively purge such content from its platform. If Facebook can't dictate what kinds of content are healthy for their platform then there could very well not be a Facebook at all.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

achenatx 7y ago

The people getting banned are famous, this is exactly the moment when another platform can allow those people their speech and make a dent in facebook's monopoly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

koonsolo 7y ago

Monopoly? Let's see how these platforms will hold up against all the distributed platforms like DTube, DLive, Mastodon, etc. The tighter the rules get for these traditional platforms, the more push there is towards distributed platforms. Do you want to earn your livelihood from a platform that can kick you out at any time with any rule they want? The new EU rules of Article 13 will make the push even stronger. Because it's not only up to the platforms anymore. You want to serve EU citizens? You need to make damn sure to put in filters that lean towards false-negatives. Interesting times up ahead.

wdr1 7y ago

> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They're not monopolies, they're just expedient ways to reach larger audiences. There's a difference. A lot of clones do exist. They would just leave it the content creator to bring their audience. If anything, there's now a danger that the platforms that cater to the fringe now start to gain traction, as some of these figures do bring with them a sizable audience of their own.

balt_s 7y ago
> A lot of clones do exist. Name three.

onewhonknocks 7y ago

No, they are not monopolies. Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted." In this case, the supply of a good or service (social networking, webpage indexing and searching) are not controlled by Facebook and Google because they aren't finite resources. Anyone can index the web and anyone can build a social network and Google/Facebook aren't going to crush you with lawsuits or some other nefarious tactic to maintain their position (AFAIK). Entry of new producers of these services is not prevented or highly restricted. New social networks and search engines pop up all the time. What Facebook and Google have is massive, large scale user loyalty. Despite alternatives existing (Bing, Mastadon, DuckDuckGo, Myspace, etc.), users are voluntarily choosing to use Google and Facebook. This is not a monopoly. I think we may need a new term for this situation.

dingo_bat 7y ago

This is exactly right. This is the reason I am against implementing net neutrality as people currently think about it. Actual net neutrality would include monopoly online platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Google. They should not be allowed to shut off people based on their opinions. They should be forced to adhere to a standard closer to that prescribed for government. If that is unacceptable to you, it should be unacceptable to force internet providers to provide a completely neutral internet, too.

raarts 7y ago

In the recent case Packingham v. North Carolina the Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, decided social media to be the new public square. See this article for why banning people from social media will be impossible in the near future. https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civil-right/ https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...