4 ms·

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

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 8y ago
[deleted]
simongr3dal 8y 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 8y 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.
  - toofy 8y ago
    > The difference is that there are many city squares to stand in, whereas there are only a handful of social media companies I’m just not sure this holds up to any kind of scrutiny. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of forums online where people can speak. It’s a problematic analogy anyway, Facebook is not a public space, if we’re going insist on applying a real world physical analogue, they would be much closer to a city’s incredibly popular nightclub with a stage, which of course would never be required to give extremists or provocateurs free-reign of their equipment or stage. But even this analogy has problems. I think the real argument is whether or not a company is free to associate its brand with whatever it likes.
Throwway32 8y ago
USENET was the equivalent of a public square on the Internet. It was overwhelmed by spam. These networks have been curated from the get-go, for no reason other than to control spam. Then, to keep people hooked, they emphasized virality and controversy. These aspects make them quite unlike a town square.
- acct1771 8y ago
  A king's court, then. Even worse.
- toofy 8y ago
  > USENET was the equivalent of a public square on the Internet. It was overwhelmed by spam. Our situation is even better than this, the entire internet is our town square, anyone can spin our own metaphorical soap box online and say whatever we want, and the entire worlds internet connected public can hear us if they choose to do so.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

simongr3dal 8y 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 8y 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.
- toofy 8y ago
  > The difference is that there are many city squares to stand in, whereas there are only a handful of social media companies I’m just not sure this holds up to any kind of scrutiny. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of forums online where people can speak. It’s a problematic analogy anyway, Facebook is not a public space, if we’re going insist on applying a real world physical analogue, they would be much closer to a city’s incredibly popular nightclub with a stage, which of course would never be required to give extremists or provocateurs free-reign of their equipment or stage. But even this analogy has problems. I think the real argument is whether or not a company is free to associate its brand with whatever it likes.

Throwway32 8y ago

USENET was the equivalent of a public square on the Internet. It was overwhelmed by spam. These networks have been curated from the get-go, for no reason other than to control spam. Then, to keep people hooked, they emphasized virality and controversy. These aspects make them quite unlike a town square.

acct1771 8y ago
A king's court, then. Even worse.
toofy 8y ago
> USENET was the equivalent of a public square on the Internet. It was overwhelmed by spam. Our situation is even better than this, the entire internet is our town square, anyone can spin our own metaphorical soap box online and say whatever we want, and the entire worlds internet connected public can hear us if they choose to do so.