3 ms·

It is inevitable that social media platforms will get into the business of shaping discourse. The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties

It is inevitable that social media platforms will get into the business of shaping discourse. The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. We can only hope for judicious use of their power to best serve the public interest.

caseysoftware 7y ago
Social media's entire business model is peddling influence at massive scale. They've always been in the "shaping discourse" business but most refused to realize it. "Twitter Revolution: How the Arab Spring Was Helped By Social Media" is over 7 years old now: https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-the-arab-spring-was-helped-by-social-media https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-th...
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  I think the business model is mostly based on ad revenue. They only care to influence to the extent that it increases the amount of time spent on the platform, maximizing the amount of ads shown, raising ARPU.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    What are ads if not influencing people?
landryraccoon 7y ago
> The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. What’s the alternative though? If it’s not private the only alternative is State control, and I don’t think that the Trump administration or XJP offers less harm than Twitter does right now. If you want the US government to control what Twitter says, that means you trust Trump more than you trust Twitter. That seems like a faustian bargain.
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  The media used to be more closely regulated in the US. Consider the Fairness Doctrine (1949-2011) [0]. It's the size and number of news organizations that's concerning. Private ownership is fine. But when very few platforms exist, the control of the narrative by any one platform increases. It doesn't permit a variety of viewpoints. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
TulliusCicero 7y ago
> The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. I mean, would you rather them be solely controlled by the government?

caseysoftware 7y ago

Social media's entire business model is peddling influence at massive scale. They've always been in the "shaping discourse" business but most refused to realize it. "Twitter Revolution: How the Arab Spring Was Helped By Social Media" is over 7 years old now: https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-the-arab-spring-was-helped-by-social-media https://www.mic.com/articles/10642/twitter-revolution-how-th...

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
I think the business model is mostly based on ad revenue. They only care to influence to the extent that it increases the amount of time spent on the platform, maximizing the amount of ads shown, raising ARPU.
- icebraining 7y ago
  What are ads if not influencing people?

landryraccoon 7y ago

> The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. What’s the alternative though? If it’s not private the only alternative is State control, and I don’t think that the Trump administration or XJP offers less harm than Twitter does right now. If you want the US government to control what Twitter says, that means you trust Trump more than you trust Twitter. That seems like a faustian bargain.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
The media used to be more closely regulated in the US. Consider the Fairness Doctrine (1949-2011) [0]. It's the size and number of news organizations that's concerning. Private ownership is fine. But when very few platforms exist, the control of the narrative by any one platform increases. It doesn't permit a variety of viewpoints. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

TulliusCicero 7y ago

> The fact that various platforms are controlled by private parties is a little nerve-racking. I mean, would you rather them be solely controlled by the government?