3 ms·

This argument has been made back and forth many many times. Private property rights vs. privatization of public spaces. Quantity becoming quality. Etc. Surf

This argument has been made back and forth many many times. Private property rights vs. privatization of public spaces. Quantity becoming quality. Etc. Surfice to say that when a corporation controls more "territory" than most state governments, when a very small number of corporations control the vast, vast majority of communication channels, the rules must change to maintain the access of the people to the new public square.

vharuck 6y ago
It's trying to solve the wrong problem. If there's a monopoly, it should be busted. Not declared a new government agency.
- ufmace 6y ago
  IMO, the problem is that some fields are natural monopolies. This has long been known to include things like electric utilities, water, etc. I don't think anybody but the most crazy extreme libertarians objects to these types of companies being heavily regulated by the Government. The question is, should this apply to internet companies, and how? It is a bit tricky. I think there is a solid case that, once social networking companies get to a certain size, there is a dominating network effect that makes them sort of like natural monopolies. Thus I think there should be some kind of regulation of their behavior. Maybe not as strict as other types of natural monopolies, but I think they have too much power to be allowed to just do whatever their owners feel like.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    One way to solve this would be to regulate only the largest platforms. So maybe this different kind of net neutrality only applies to Twitter/Facebook/YouTube, domain registrars, ISPs, large cloud providers and other significant privately-owned infrastructure, but not to every random bit player with no real market share. Otherwise, what happens if the ISPs decide that, say, Net Neutrality cuts into their profit margins, so they're just not going to route traffic for the sites that are politically antagonistic to them right before the election? Sure would be a shame if something happened to that site of yours, huh?
- mindslight 6y ago
  The difficulty is that communication networks form natural monopolies due to Metcalfe's law, unless we legislate APIs for open connection and federation. Which is probably above regulators' capabilities, and definitely above our political capabilities. The most straightforward way would be to mandate that web services had to allow API access for everything the web interface does, so users could use client software to aggregate multiple services. But this would undermine websites ability to make money off adspam, which while great, means it's politically a non-starter.
imustbeevil 6y ago
> privatization of public spaces. You're misunderstanding the causality. These are private spaces. Just because lots of people show up doesn't make it public. Yankee Stadium isn't a public utility. You're asking to make these private spaces public. That's something you have to change in the existing laws. The first amendment has nothing to do with that. I would also argue that the government creating its own public space would be the best because then there wouldn't be this perverse idea that anything anyone creates can be taken from them by the government whenever it becomes convenient.
- busterarm 6y ago
  You don't _have_ to go to Yankee Stadium. Well over 95% of all web traffic consumes either Google Search, Google Chrome, Google Ads or uses an Android. You almost cannot avoid Google and still use the internet. Similarly, Facebook controls over 80% of Social Media traffic and you will find it difficult to meaningfully use your identity online to communicate. The FAANGs aren't the destination, they're the roadways to get to virtually all online content. They literally are the utility. Your argument is more like if Yankee Stadium got to choose who was allowed to get off the 6 train at their stop, and I think everyone would agree that would be bonkers.
  - 6510 6y ago
    Toll roads or no bandits! Hand over 30% protection money.
- 6510 6y ago
  I've been arguing since the 90's that governments around the world failed us terribly by not creating public spaces. I imagined all kinds of terrible implications, some came true others I couldn't have imagined. The simplest example is that we have businesses seeking consumers and people seeking products. You could boost the economy enormously by forcing both though a government funnel. (with reasonable exception)

vharuck 6y ago

It's trying to solve the wrong problem. If there's a monopoly, it should be busted. Not declared a new government agency.

ufmace 6y ago
IMO, the problem is that some fields are natural monopolies. This has long been known to include things like electric utilities, water, etc. I don't think anybody but the most crazy extreme libertarians objects to these types of companies being heavily regulated by the Government. The question is, should this apply to internet companies, and how? It is a bit tricky. I think there is a solid case that, once social networking companies get to a certain size, there is a dominating network effect that makes them sort of like natural monopolies. Thus I think there should be some kind of regulation of their behavior. Maybe not as strict as other types of natural monopolies, but I think they have too much power to be allowed to just do whatever their owners feel like.
- Natsu 6y ago
  One way to solve this would be to regulate only the largest platforms. So maybe this different kind of net neutrality only applies to Twitter/Facebook/YouTube, domain registrars, ISPs, large cloud providers and other significant privately-owned infrastructure, but not to every random bit player with no real market share. Otherwise, what happens if the ISPs decide that, say, Net Neutrality cuts into their profit margins, so they're just not going to route traffic for the sites that are politically antagonistic to them right before the election? Sure would be a shame if something happened to that site of yours, huh?
mindslight 6y ago
The difficulty is that communication networks form natural monopolies due to Metcalfe's law, unless we legislate APIs for open connection and federation. Which is probably above regulators' capabilities, and definitely above our political capabilities. The most straightforward way would be to mandate that web services had to allow API access for everything the web interface does, so users could use client software to aggregate multiple services. But this would undermine websites ability to make money off adspam, which while great, means it's politically a non-starter.

imustbeevil 6y ago

> privatization of public spaces. You're misunderstanding the causality. These are private spaces. Just because lots of people show up doesn't make it public. Yankee Stadium isn't a public utility. You're asking to make these private spaces public. That's something you have to change in the existing laws. The first amendment has nothing to do with that. I would also argue that the government creating its own public space would be the best because then there wouldn't be this perverse idea that anything anyone creates can be taken from them by the government whenever it becomes convenient.

busterarm 6y ago
You don't _have_ to go to Yankee Stadium. Well over 95% of all web traffic consumes either Google Search, Google Chrome, Google Ads or uses an Android. You almost cannot avoid Google and still use the internet. Similarly, Facebook controls over 80% of Social Media traffic and you will find it difficult to meaningfully use your identity online to communicate. The FAANGs aren't the destination, they're the roadways to get to virtually all online content. They literally are the utility. Your argument is more like if Yankee Stadium got to choose who was allowed to get off the 6 train at their stop, and I think everyone would agree that would be bonkers.
- 6510 6y ago
  Toll roads or no bandits! Hand over 30% protection money.
6510 6y ago
I've been arguing since the 90's that governments around the world failed us terribly by not creating public spaces. I imagined all kinds of terrible implications, some came true others I couldn't have imagined. The simplest example is that we have businesses seeking consumers and people seeking products. You could boost the economy enormously by forcing both though a government funnel. (with reasonable exception)