8 ms·

> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter - they have monopolised that "

> Social media is a not a public square where people can plant their soapbox Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter - they have monopolised that "short catchy text stream" market. Other services, like Gab, exist - but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else. For better or worse, Facebook and Twitter consumed blogs, and there are no real alternatives.

sooper 6y ago
> "Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter" I'm curious, what's the problem with that?
- lukifer 6y ago
  Metcalfe's Law [0] dictates that the value of a network service scales exponentially with its number of nodes. This tilts the table in favor of winner-take-all ecosystems; moreover, in terms of both political soft power and cultural influence, this often creates a pressure for users to participate, not quite under duress, but let's say unenthusiastically, lest they be left out of the conversation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
  - disconcision 6y ago
    (proportional to the square of the number of nodes, not exponentially)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
StavrosK 6y ago
> but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives What has Cloudflare pulled support for, except the one neonazi site that made them vow never to do it again?
- lukifer 6y ago
  I believe they've done it twice now: once for the Daily Stormer [0], once for 8chan [1]. I'm fairly impressed that they host criticism of those decisions on their own website [2]. [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ [1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ [2] https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/ https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/
kixiQu 6y ago
you can still make a blog! if everyone is technically able to access your content but no one wants to (for reasons other than fearing govt. intervention), that is a very different problem than a freedom of speech problem.
bananabreakfast 6y ago
So what? A monopoly on something that is not a market anyway does not give the government the right to nationalize its interests.
lancesells 6y ago
That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If they're the former and you allow them to discriminate then what's your argument against other businesses discriminating? Can't see that ending well. If, however, we accept that they're publishers - which in my view they are, as they edit what can be seen in several ways - then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies.
  - prawn 6y ago
    Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal. But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      There's only so far a metaphor can be pushed, unfortunately (or fortunately?), and I completely agree, the real point is the distinction and whether it applies.
  - hnick 6y ago
    TV channels refuse advertising based on politics or community standards. That's pretty similar - provide your own content, and rent airtime, but get rejected because of what you say.
nscalf 6y ago
Why does there have to be an alternative? They can give speeches, send letters and emails, go on television, post to other social media platforms, yell in a park, release an album, etc. You have the right to freedom of speech, not the right to freedom of mediums of speech.
- darkerside 6y ago
  They're also free to blog, set up their own Mastodon, etc
- stale2002 6y ago
  If this is your opinion, then why not go even further? If you don't support lowering Walmart's taxes, along with all other grocery stores, then why shouldn't they be allowed to permanently ban you for all places to buy food from, forever?
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    Can't they? They can't discriminate based on protected traits, but political opinions aren't really protected on a federal level. It might not be a good business idea, but I think it's legal (correct me if I'm off base on my legal positions).
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Can't they? For every single grocery store in the world to starve the population of people who do not vote for decreasing their taxes? No, I am pretty sure that society would do something about that, if this happened.
      - hsikka 6y ago
        I’m not sure I follow this line of thought. If all the grocery stores did this, then I agree society would certainly take action: build better, more open grocery stores. surely the same principle applies here, A business like Twitter can choose to block a group of ideologies. If there is enough want in the part of people to propagate those ideologies, they’ll build a better forum and if those ideas are successful, that forum will be. Competitive, capitalistic behavior handles this.
lol636363 6y ago
Forcing companies to host hateful content will drive away regular users. That's not good for business.
rkagerer 6y ago
It's shortsighted how beholden some people think the world is to Twitter and other social media platforms that happen to be in vogue at the moment. Changing fads tend to drift the masses to a new platform for communication every decade or two. Personally I barely use Twitter or Facebook. I much prefer forums like this one or StackOverflow, which do a better job of encouraging quality contributions. Trump or the White House could conceivably come out with their own app as an alternative means to directly reach followers and avoid censorship. If the people who want to hear him aren't engaged enough to tap a few buttons to install it, I have trouble mustering much sympathy. I'm an avid supporter of free speech, but I think people who place their faith in a small number of private companies to provide that are naive.
michaelmrose 6y ago
There isn't an alternative to twitter that will get you as many views as quickly. Are your rights decreased if fewer people hear you because they aren't interested in your message enough to come to www.mydomain.com
FDSGSG 6y ago
> but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else But Cloudflare isn't a monopoly. Botnet operators have no trouble finding crime-friendly DDoS protected hosting, the only reason the Nazis struggle with this is lack of experience.

sooper 6y ago

> "Except there isn't really an alternative to Twitter" I'm curious, what's the problem with that?

lukifer 6y ago
Metcalfe's Law [0] dictates that the value of a network service scales exponentially with its number of nodes. This tilts the table in favor of winner-take-all ecosystems; moreover, in terms of both political soft power and cultural influence, this often creates a pressure for users to participate, not quite under duress, but let's say unenthusiastically, lest they be left out of the conversation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
- disconcision 6y ago
  (proportional to the square of the number of nodes, not exponentially)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

StavrosK 6y ago

> but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives What has Cloudflare pulled support for, except the one neonazi site that made them vow never to do it again?

lukifer 6y ago
I believe they've done it twice now: once for the Daily Stormer [0], once for 8chan [1]. I'm fairly impressed that they host criticism of those decisions on their own website [2]. [0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ [1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/ [2] https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/ https://www.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-criticism/

kixiQu 6y ago

you can still make a blog! if everyone is technically able to access your content but no one wants to (for reasons other than fearing govt. intervention), that is a very different problem than a freedom of speech problem.

bananabreakfast 6y ago

So what? A monopoly on something that is not a market anyway does not give the government the right to nationalize its interests.

lancesells 6y ago

That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. Social networks are private companies built for profit. For better or worse they should be able to censor anything that's not good for their business. Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook.

brigandish 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter are ostensibly platforms. The analogy would be if a TV network rented out studios and cameras but prevented you from hiring them even though you had the money because they didn't like you or what you were going to film or had filmed or might film. If they were a TV channel or programme then they'd have no bother refusing you. And that's the nub, are they a platform or are they a publisher? If they're the former and you allow them to discriminate then what's your argument against other businesses discriminating? Can't see that ending well. If, however, we accept that they're publishers - which in my view they are, as they edit what can be seen in several ways - then by all means let them discriminate but they must follow the rules of other publishing media companies.
- prawn 6y ago
  Might be missing your point, but a studio for rent does deny paying customers if it wants. Conference facilities might deny particular events. TV networks deny ads that are otherwise legal. But I don't think it's needed in the argument. As you say, the interesting distinction is around platform versus publisher and any legal protections you gain from posing as the former.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    There's only so far a metaphor can be pushed, unfortunately (or fortunately?), and I completely agree, the real point is the distinction and whether it applies.
- hnick 6y ago
  TV channels refuse advertising based on politics or community standards. That's pretty similar - provide your own content, and rent airtime, but get rejected because of what you say.

nscalf 6y ago

Why does there have to be an alternative? They can give speeches, send letters and emails, go on television, post to other social media platforms, yell in a park, release an album, etc. You have the right to freedom of speech, not the right to freedom of mediums of speech.

darkerside 6y ago
They're also free to blog, set up their own Mastodon, etc
stale2002 6y ago
If this is your opinion, then why not go even further? If you don't support lowering Walmart's taxes, along with all other grocery stores, then why shouldn't they be allowed to permanently ban you for all places to buy food from, forever?
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  Can't they? They can't discriminate based on protected traits, but political opinions aren't really protected on a federal level. It might not be a good business idea, but I think it's legal (correct me if I'm off base on my legal positions).
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Can't they? For every single grocery store in the world to starve the population of people who do not vote for decreasing their taxes? No, I am pretty sure that society would do something about that, if this happened.
    - hsikka 6y ago
      I’m not sure I follow this line of thought. If all the grocery stores did this, then I agree society would certainly take action: build better, more open grocery stores. surely the same principle applies here, A business like Twitter can choose to block a group of ideologies. If there is enough want in the part of people to propagate those ideologies, they’ll build a better forum and if those ideas are successful, that forum will be. Competitive, capitalistic behavior handles this.

lol636363 6y ago

Forcing companies to host hateful content will drive away regular users. That's not good for business.

rkagerer 6y ago

It's shortsighted how beholden some people think the world is to Twitter and other social media platforms that happen to be in vogue at the moment. Changing fads tend to drift the masses to a new platform for communication every decade or two. Personally I barely use Twitter or Facebook. I much prefer forums like this one or StackOverflow, which do a better job of encouraging quality contributions. Trump or the White House could conceivably come out with their own app as an alternative means to directly reach followers and avoid censorship. If the people who want to hear him aren't engaged enough to tap a few buttons to install it, I have trouble mustering much sympathy. I'm an avid supporter of free speech, but I think people who place their faith in a small number of private companies to provide that are naive.

michaelmrose 6y ago

There isn't an alternative to twitter that will get you as many views as quickly. Are your rights decreased if fewer people hear you because they aren't interested in your message enough to come to www.mydomain.com

FDSGSG 6y ago

> but when services like Cloudflare readily pull support for less mainstream alternatives, its hard to say that if you don't like Twitter you can go somewhere else But Cloudflare isn't a monopoly. Botnet operators have no trouble finding crime-friendly DDoS protected hosting, the only reason the Nazis struggle with this is lack of experience.