6 ms·

You know what would help. More alternatives. What if Instagram, WhatsApp, Youtube, etc were all still independent or there was interopability between Google Cir

You know what would help. More alternatives. What if Instagram, WhatsApp, Youtube, etc were all still independent or there was interopability between Google Circles, Facebook and whatever else? Watch how fast Facebook would adapt and be monitoring news and trying to conform to the public opinion if they felt they needed to compete. The only reason we're in this position is because a reduction in real competition in the market and the only power they fear is that of democratically elected representatives. Elizabeth Warren had this right. Break up the platforms, and force social networks to allow a download of your data in a json format and move to a seperate service. Easily. That is the ONLY regulation we need.

lanevorockz 6y ago
Social Media are the real monopolies. For the first time we have a business that are provided for free and that are based on the concept of monetising its users. There is zero accountability and it is the closest we will get to a natural monopoly. It's interesting how they also collude with each other by defaming competitions and circularly maintaining this monopoly. Good example is Apple/Google process to accept new social media companies. It's nearly impossible and to a much higher standard they hold themselves.
- ISL 6y ago
  Phone books existed long before the internet. I feel old writing this, but once a upon a time, phone-book companies (often the phone company, but not always) would deliver a phone book to every address with a phone. This was paid for almost-entirely by the advertising sold by the phone-book company. If a company or person wasn't in the phone book, they pretty much didn't exist. All of this has happened before, all of it will happen again.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> force social networks to allow a download of your data in a json format and move to a seperate service. In markets concerned with serving European users, GDPR already allows you to download your data. Facebook has allowed one to download all of one’s own messages, pictures, etc. for many years now. The problem is that, in order to avoid infringing on other people’s privacy rights, downloaded data has to be anonymized: you can see your own messages as your own, but anything from another user will just be identified with a random identifier instead of their real name. This then makes it a challenge, when you want to import the data into a new service, to have all those messages associated with your friends’ accounts on the new service.
karatestomp 6y ago
This is the real answer. Removing the incentives that discourage interoperability and common standards would help. This probably means regulating spying-centric advertising and related mass-data-gathering out of existence. Twitter should be a protocol with many providers and many clients, not a restrictive service from a single provider. Ditto most of the rest.
- zmj 6y ago
  It's not. This assumes that people want what's best for them. People want what was best for a small group of hunter-gatherers in hostile territory.
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    People should have the agency to decide what’s best for themselves. We all have natural rights to life, liberty and property.
specialist 6y ago
Markets are winner takes all. No matter the size, there will be power law distribution. First place, runner up, distant third, everyone else. Market consolidation (regional, national, global) reduced the number of markets, reducing the number of players. One very illiberal idea is that we also need to break up markets, erect some barriers. Prevent winners in one market from usurping other markets.
mrep 6y ago
For what it is worth, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter are all part of the data transfer project which is designed to do that [0]. It is still in development though and I cannot comment on how much each company is investing in it. [0]: https://datatransferproject.dev/ https://datatransferproject.dev/

lanevorockz 6y ago

Social Media are the real monopolies. For the first time we have a business that are provided for free and that are based on the concept of monetising its users. There is zero accountability and it is the closest we will get to a natural monopoly. It's interesting how they also collude with each other by defaming competitions and circularly maintaining this monopoly. Good example is Apple/Google process to accept new social media companies. It's nearly impossible and to a much higher standard they hold themselves.

ISL 6y ago
Phone books existed long before the internet. I feel old writing this, but once a upon a time, phone-book companies (often the phone company, but not always) would deliver a phone book to every address with a phone. This was paid for almost-entirely by the advertising sold by the phone-book company. If a company or person wasn't in the phone book, they pretty much didn't exist. All of this has happened before, all of it will happen again.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> force social networks to allow a download of your data in a json format and move to a seperate service. In markets concerned with serving European users, GDPR already allows you to download your data. Facebook has allowed one to download all of one’s own messages, pictures, etc. for many years now. The problem is that, in order to avoid infringing on other people’s privacy rights, downloaded data has to be anonymized: you can see your own messages as your own, but anything from another user will just be identified with a random identifier instead of their real name. This then makes it a challenge, when you want to import the data into a new service, to have all those messages associated with your friends’ accounts on the new service.

karatestomp 6y ago

This is the real answer. Removing the incentives that discourage interoperability and common standards would help. This probably means regulating spying-centric advertising and related mass-data-gathering out of existence. Twitter should be a protocol with many providers and many clients, not a restrictive service from a single provider. Ditto most of the rest.

zmj 6y ago
It's not. This assumes that people want what's best for them. People want what was best for a small group of hunter-gatherers in hostile territory.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  People should have the agency to decide what’s best for themselves. We all have natural rights to life, liberty and property.

specialist 6y ago

Markets are winner takes all. No matter the size, there will be power law distribution. First place, runner up, distant third, everyone else. Market consolidation (regional, national, global) reduced the number of markets, reducing the number of players. One very illiberal idea is that we also need to break up markets, erect some barriers. Prevent winners in one market from usurping other markets.

mrep 6y ago

For what it is worth, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter are all part of the data transfer project which is designed to do that [0]. It is still in development though and I cannot comment on how much each company is investing in it. [0]: https://datatransferproject.dev/ https://datatransferproject.dev/