5 ms·

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were fed

The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. If Facebook and Twitter's social networks were federated like email, it wouldn't matter whether they refuse to propagate one opinion or another. Unhappy users or anyone who feels silenced could simply switch to a different provider. The problem isn't that Facebook or Twitter are allowing or not allowing free speech on their private networks. The problem is that their private networks have become so central to public discourse that they have undue authority over public speech. No private company should be in a position where they can silence speech to begin with. I'm not arguing that these companies be broken up, either. What I am arguing is that they open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix. By the government if necessary.

lliamander 7y ago
> The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. That seems to be Stratechery's point as well: > Facebook’s decision about ads wish the company would wield its power in their favor; my question is whether such power should even exist in the first place. Facebook can close Munroe’s door on anyone, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
zozbot234 7y ago
> I'm not arguing that these companies be broken up, either. What I am arguing is that they open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix. This is essentially a 'breakup' though, of the sort that's actually effective. It's isolating the potentially-monopolistic, non-contestable part of the company - the "platform" standard - and making it accessible to others on an equitable basis. This is the model that any "monopoly breakups" should follow, whether simply "opening up to a standard" is viable or not.
- germinalphrase 7y ago
  We need an extremely easy way to communicate this difference in system to the public - ideally an image as simple a the food pyramid. If it takes too much explaining, it won’t go anywhere. They’re not invested enough to care. But, adequately proposed, they can be moved from saying “whatever” to “yes, that makes sense”.
stickfigure 7y ago
open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal enemies, but they apparently haven't figured it out yet. You cannot share data with open protocols and still maintain control of that data.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  This is still somewhat true today anyway. Companies archive tweets for the public record and users can take screenshots or copy paste.
- matheusmoreira 7y ago
  The privacy mavens are going to lose. Controlling what can and can't be shared is just like copyright enforcement. If they want privacy, the answer is to not share information at all or share only with trustworthy people. If some post leaks, all bets are off. There is nothing they can do about it and that's how it should be.
  - devnulloverflow 7y ago
    > copyright enforcement. Ahh, but copyright won the last war, by moving to centralised platforms. The privacy mavens are going to lose, but they are going to lose to Big Brother, not to decentralisation.
    - matheusmoreira 7y ago
      They won by making services that are good enough for most people to not bother infringing, not by enforcing copyrights. Now they're getting greedy and fragmenting the market, making life needlessly difficult for consumers. I have no doubt lots of people will turn to "piracy" because of that.
  - 7y ago
jamiequint 7y ago
Ben Thompson has actually suggested exactly this in previous articles: https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-buy-tbh/ https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...
gorgoiler 7y ago
It doesn’t seem moral to regulate a monopoly just because no one else has the chops to compete with it. (If the monopoly engages in anti-competitive behavior then it is fair game for regulation, of course.)
jay_kyburz 7y ago
I consider myself pretty progressive, but I find the idea of forcing companies to "open up their networks" distasteful and problematic. I just doesn't seem piratical. I've said it a few times before, I don't think the problem is the carriers, its that there are no penalties for telling a lie on the internet. This is where we should start to fix this problem.
- PureParadigm 7y ago
  For Americans, First Amendment protects telling lies (as long as there is no other crime such as fraud), so penalties for lying on the internet likely wouldn't stand up in court.
  - jay_kyburz 7y ago
    Well then, the problem is baked right into the first amendment. (But aren't most lies a kind of fraud?)
    - raxxorrax 7y ago
      No, not every lie is fraud and everyone lies from time to time. What problem do you think this would solve? Frankly, I think it would have catastrophic repercussions for any form of communication. Try to complete a day with complete honesty. Wouldn't net you that many friends. Perhaps a few would think you are refreshingly funny. Probably people that are a bit angry with current aspirations to restrict content.
- KozmoNau7 7y ago
  Eventually you'll run into the problem of defining a lie. How about a half-truth? Lying by omission? The laws in most western countries allow for consequences in cases of slander and libel or where a person directly seeks to sow hatred and division against minorites for instance, defined as hate speech. Even that last part is somewhat controversial in regards to free speech, as some people think there should be no limits on speech at all. I think the solution (or at least part of a solution) is to mandate open standards and transparency, especially when it touches politics. Provide federated social network standards that interoperate, instead of the walled gardens we have now.
spyckie2 7y ago
Here's the thing. Are "platforms for speech" so important? Are they as important to our society as say, basic infrastructure? If they are, we should treat them like how we treat electricity and plumbing, housing and transportation, education and healthcare. Imagine if our roads were maintained and monopolized by a tech company. Every driver would be a "user" to milk cash out of, either through subscription or through ads. It's a bit of a stretch from your original idea, but maybe you're suggesting for government to run social platforms OR heavily regulate them instead.
- pojntfx 7y ago
  This. The internet is a basic service and should thus be ran by the people.
- ohduran 7y ago
  I'm afraid that no innovation would come after that: there would be simply no incentive to improve the Internet as it would be, because eventually it would be "nationalised" so to say, and profit will max out for Internet companies. I'm all for thinking of ways to tackle the issue with Facebook and Twitter's monopolies, which are a special form of one in the sense that the technology to build similar platforms is more or less open source, but the ability to gather together millions of people isn't. But let's not kid ourselves and be led to unintended consequences out of it.

lliamander 7y ago

> The fundamental problem is the near monopoly powers enjoyed by a select few social media and tech companies. That seems to be Stratechery's point as well: > Facebook’s decision about ads wish the company would wield its power in their favor; my question is whether such power should even exist in the first place. Facebook can close Munroe’s door on anyone, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

zozbot234 7y ago

> I'm not arguing that these companies be broken up, either. What I am arguing is that they open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix. This is essentially a 'breakup' though, of the sort that's actually effective. It's isolating the potentially-monopolistic, non-contestable part of the company - the "platform" standard - and making it accessible to others on an equitable basis. This is the model that any "monopoly breakups" should follow, whether simply "opening up to a standard" is viable or not.

germinalphrase 7y ago
We need an extremely easy way to communicate this difference in system to the public - ideally an image as simple a the food pyramid. If it takes too much explaining, it won’t go anywhere. They’re not invested enough to care. But, adequately proposed, they can be moved from saying “whatever” to “yes, that makes sense”.

stickfigure 7y ago

open up their networks to interact with other services using an open protocol such as Mastadon or Matrix And here is where the two camps of Facebook-haters will go to war with each other: * The decentralization mavens want open protocols and distributed control. * The privacy mavens want to control information as it flows through the network, preventing friends from oversharing "your" data. These two camps are mortal enemies, but they apparently haven't figured it out yet. You cannot share data with open protocols and still maintain control of that data.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
This is still somewhat true today anyway. Companies archive tweets for the public record and users can take screenshots or copy paste.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
The privacy mavens are going to lose. Controlling what can and can't be shared is just like copyright enforcement. If they want privacy, the answer is to not share information at all or share only with trustworthy people. If some post leaks, all bets are off. There is nothing they can do about it and that's how it should be.
- devnulloverflow 7y ago
  > copyright enforcement. Ahh, but copyright won the last war, by moving to centralised platforms. The privacy mavens are going to lose, but they are going to lose to Big Brother, not to decentralisation.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    They won by making services that are good enough for most people to not bother infringing, not by enforcing copyrights. Now they're getting greedy and fragmenting the market, making life needlessly difficult for consumers. I have no doubt lots of people will turn to "piracy" because of that.
- 7y ago

jamiequint 7y ago

Ben Thompson has actually suggested exactly this in previous articles: https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-buy-tbh/ https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...

gorgoiler 7y ago

It doesn’t seem moral to regulate a monopoly just because no one else has the chops to compete with it. (If the monopoly engages in anti-competitive behavior then it is fair game for regulation, of course.)

jay_kyburz 7y ago

I consider myself pretty progressive, but I find the idea of forcing companies to "open up their networks" distasteful and problematic. I just doesn't seem piratical. I've said it a few times before, I don't think the problem is the carriers, its that there are no penalties for telling a lie on the internet. This is where we should start to fix this problem.

PureParadigm 7y ago
For Americans, First Amendment protects telling lies (as long as there is no other crime such as fraud), so penalties for lying on the internet likely wouldn't stand up in court.
- jay_kyburz 7y ago
  Well then, the problem is baked right into the first amendment. (But aren't most lies a kind of fraud?)
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    No, not every lie is fraud and everyone lies from time to time. What problem do you think this would solve? Frankly, I think it would have catastrophic repercussions for any form of communication. Try to complete a day with complete honesty. Wouldn't net you that many friends. Perhaps a few would think you are refreshingly funny. Probably people that are a bit angry with current aspirations to restrict content.
KozmoNau7 7y ago
Eventually you'll run into the problem of defining a lie. How about a half-truth? Lying by omission? The laws in most western countries allow for consequences in cases of slander and libel or where a person directly seeks to sow hatred and division against minorites for instance, defined as hate speech. Even that last part is somewhat controversial in regards to free speech, as some people think there should be no limits on speech at all. I think the solution (or at least part of a solution) is to mandate open standards and transparency, especially when it touches politics. Provide federated social network standards that interoperate, instead of the walled gardens we have now.

spyckie2 7y ago

Here's the thing. Are "platforms for speech" so important? Are they as important to our society as say, basic infrastructure? If they are, we should treat them like how we treat electricity and plumbing, housing and transportation, education and healthcare. Imagine if our roads were maintained and monopolized by a tech company. Every driver would be a "user" to milk cash out of, either through subscription or through ads. It's a bit of a stretch from your original idea, but maybe you're suggesting for government to run social platforms OR heavily regulate them instead.

pojntfx 7y ago
This. The internet is a basic service and should thus be ran by the people.
ohduran 7y ago
I'm afraid that no innovation would come after that: there would be simply no incentive to improve the Internet as it would be, because eventually it would be "nationalised" so to say, and profit will max out for Internet companies. I'm all for thinking of ways to tackle the issue with Facebook and Twitter's monopolies, which are a special form of one in the sense that the technology to build similar platforms is more or less open source, but the ability to gather together millions of people isn't. But let's not kid ourselves and be led to unintended consequences out of it.