6 ms·

> Refusing to serve a customer when you disagree with that customer's goal is pretty far from being a "moral arbiter for society." Keep in mind that anyone is f

by Gunax 7y ago

> Refusing to serve a customer when you disagree with that customer's goal is pretty far from being a "moral arbiter for society." Keep in mind that anyone is free to use other services (or roll their own) and gitlab can't do anything about that. Neither would it be overreaching for the workers building that product to request a say in how it's used. I think this is the crux of the issue. Anyone is of course free to roll their own GitLab (or facebook, or news channel). But this ignores reality. Facebook control ~90% of social media. There's a very high chance that Facebook could sway every election in America (and lots of other countries also) if they truly wanted to. I think we are entering a new era. Just as it required a paradigm shift to outlaw anti-competitive practices, I think we need to re-consider what rights these platforms have around speech.

wolco 7y ago
I didn't realize facebooi owned 90%. If you exclude twitter/reddit what's left snapchat?
- hokumguru 7y ago
  Facebook owns Instagram - the 2nd largest social network - as well as Whatsapp which is ginormous in its own right as well.
- keerthiko 7y ago
  I'd guess mostly WeChat/Alibaba/TikTok, and a few tiny players that ebb and flow in impact.
- Gunax 7y ago
  Eh, I guess this is not true. To me, 'social media' always meant websites like MySpace and Orkut where friends connect, and not just 'website where users can communicate in some way' a la Pinterest/Reddit/YouTube. But I realise now that isn't the right definition... still not sure what the word is for the Friendster/MySpace clones--but among those I am pretty sure Facebook is more than 90% of the market (outside of China), possibly more than 99% with Google+ closing.
akersten 7y ago
Or, just break up the alleged monopoly under existing anti-trust regulation, instead of welcoming a terrifying new power of the government mandating that private business serve customers they disagree with?
- Aeolun 7y ago
  On the list of ‘terrifying new powers’ this one is waaay down. If the customer is not doing anything illegal you have no reason not to serve them.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Other than that pesky nebulous western value of "Freedom", sure, I guess you have no reason to be able to make that kind of business decision. Compelled speech or compelled production of value come in many disguises, and are hallmarks of oppressive and dangerous regimes. It's disingenuous to suggest that starting down that path would be innocent.
    - eanzenberg 7y ago
      But these things are already happening, such as forcing religious bakers to bake cakes for couples they don’t agree with
      - camel_Snake 7y ago
        Of course, because the reasoning wasn't 'you are a jerk' or 'we don't want to make that type of cake' or 'we're too busy right now' but rather 'you are gay'. Sexual orientation is a protected class and acting like a jerk on the internet isn't. No one is forcing all businesses to do serve all customers everywhere always. We are saying you can't discriminate on the basis of marginalized groups.
- Gunax 7y ago
  I lean libertarian, but sometimes realty breaks that. True libertarianism dictates that I can ban whomever I want from my shop. But in reality most of the bans were of the 'No Negroes' variety. I would love to think that the free market would take care of discriminatory businesses, but history shows it will not. I agree that the true issue is ultimately monopoly: if a town has 10 newspapers and one goes democrat-leaning, no one would really care. But it's different if there is only 1 newspaper. I worry that there can only ever be a single Friendster/Google+/Myspace around, because people will always gravitate towards the most popular one.
XorNot 7y ago
Ah the old "too big to fail" argument, alive and well.
yxhuvud 7y ago
> Facebook control ~90% of social media. Source? That doesn't really match the numbers I've seen. Especially not for younger people.
- Majestic121 7y ago
  Remember that Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp. They might not be 90+ everywhere, but they do own a significant amount
- UserIsUnused 7y ago
  Instagram and whatsapp are facebook. Ofc, even then 90% might be too much.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  By MAU, 2.3 billion vs 1.9 for YouTube (arguably not a messaging-based SM site), and 1.0 for Instagram (owned by FB). Qzone is 4th at 563 million, 17% of FB+Insta. Not quite 90% by that measure, but close. https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-networking-sites/ https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-network... Mindshare, reach, time-on-site, and media references are alternate measures. Definitions matter.
- Gunax 7y ago
  Eh, I guess this is not true. To me, 'social media' always meant websites like MySpace and Orkut where friends connect, and not just 'website where users can communicate in some way' a la Pinterest/Reddit/YouTube. But I realise now that isn't the right definition... still not sure what the word is for the Friendster/MySpace clones--but among those I am pretty sure Facebook is more than 90% of the market (outside of China), possibly more than 99% with Google+ closing.

by Gunax 7y ago

wolco 7y ago

I didn't realize facebooi owned 90%. If you exclude twitter/reddit what's left snapchat?

hokumguru 7y ago
Facebook owns Instagram - the 2nd largest social network - as well as Whatsapp which is ginormous in its own right as well.
keerthiko 7y ago
I'd guess mostly WeChat/Alibaba/TikTok, and a few tiny players that ebb and flow in impact.
Gunax 7y ago
Eh, I guess this is not true. To me, 'social media' always meant websites like MySpace and Orkut where friends connect, and not just 'website where users can communicate in some way' a la Pinterest/Reddit/YouTube. But I realise now that isn't the right definition... still not sure what the word is for the Friendster/MySpace clones--but among those I am pretty sure Facebook is more than 90% of the market (outside of China), possibly more than 99% with Google+ closing.

akersten 7y ago

Or, just break up the alleged monopoly under existing anti-trust regulation, instead of welcoming a terrifying new power of the government mandating that private business serve customers they disagree with?

Aeolun 7y ago
On the list of ‘terrifying new powers’ this one is waaay down. If the customer is not doing anything illegal you have no reason not to serve them.
- akersten 7y ago
  Other than that pesky nebulous western value of "Freedom", sure, I guess you have no reason to be able to make that kind of business decision. Compelled speech or compelled production of value come in many disguises, and are hallmarks of oppressive and dangerous regimes. It's disingenuous to suggest that starting down that path would be innocent.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    But these things are already happening, such as forcing religious bakers to bake cakes for couples they don’t agree with
    - camel_Snake 7y ago
      Of course, because the reasoning wasn't 'you are a jerk' or 'we don't want to make that type of cake' or 'we're too busy right now' but rather 'you are gay'. Sexual orientation is a protected class and acting like a jerk on the internet isn't. No one is forcing all businesses to do serve all customers everywhere always. We are saying you can't discriminate on the basis of marginalized groups.
Gunax 7y ago
I lean libertarian, but sometimes realty breaks that. True libertarianism dictates that I can ban whomever I want from my shop. But in reality most of the bans were of the 'No Negroes' variety. I would love to think that the free market would take care of discriminatory businesses, but history shows it will not. I agree that the true issue is ultimately monopoly: if a town has 10 newspapers and one goes democrat-leaning, no one would really care. But it's different if there is only 1 newspaper. I worry that there can only ever be a single Friendster/Google+/Myspace around, because people will always gravitate towards the most popular one.

XorNot 7y ago

Ah the old "too big to fail" argument, alive and well.

yxhuvud 7y ago

> Facebook control ~90% of social media. Source? That doesn't really match the numbers I've seen. Especially not for younger people.

Majestic121 7y ago
Remember that Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp. They might not be 90+ everywhere, but they do own a significant amount
UserIsUnused 7y ago
Instagram and whatsapp are facebook. Ofc, even then 90% might be too much.
dredmorbius 7y ago
By MAU, 2.3 billion vs 1.9 for YouTube (arguably not a messaging-based SM site), and 1.0 for Instagram (owned by FB). Qzone is 4th at 563 million, 17% of FB+Insta. Not quite 90% by that measure, but close. https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-networking-sites/ https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-network... Mindshare, reach, time-on-site, and media references are alternate measures. Definitions matter.
Gunax 7y ago
Eh, I guess this is not true. To me, 'social media' always meant websites like MySpace and Orkut where friends connect, and not just 'website where users can communicate in some way' a la Pinterest/Reddit/YouTube. But I realise now that isn't the right definition... still not sure what the word is for the Friendster/MySpace clones--but among those I am pretty sure Facebook is more than 90% of the market (outside of China), possibly more than 99% with Google+ closing.