11 ms·
I think the very unhealthy dominance of Facebook will only start to properly recede when countries outside the USA start to block its use. This is a highly pred
by oska 6y ago
I think the very unhealthy dominance of Facebook will only start to properly recede when countries outside the USA start to block its use. This is a highly predatory company that takes away sovereignty in each nation's cyberspace and it really only makes sense for foreign countries to block it and either let their own national corporate replacements emerge (as China has done) or foster the use of open social networks and protocols (my strong preference).
This doesn't solve the problem for people in the USA of course (well, other nations fostering open social networks will help some). The USA obviously needs to look at antitrust measures to fix the issue at home. But other countries can't afford to wait for that to happen.
- pwdisswordfish2 6y agoSounds about right as Facebook have admitted they cannot grow anymore in the US. Any growth must come from outside the US.
- hkai 6y agoJust to check, between Facebook and WeChat, which company engages more in predatory, racist and violent practices and is complicit in unthinkable brutality and violations of human rights?
- cambalache 6y agois it a competition? Because nobody is winning. Nobody in the world says, oh please Americans come to fuck us because at least you use lubricant.
- deathgrips 6y agoHow do I save comments?
- hkai 6y agoBut you don't have a choice. Either it's Facebook, which is relatively transparent and can be sued, regulated and criticized in the media. Or it's another social network that you have absolutely no recourse against.
- cambalache 6y agoHi Mark nice of you passing by. > Either it's Facebook, which is relatively transparent Nice joke to break the ice. > and can be sued, regulated and criticized in the media Well, the same applies to any other App, and yes this include tik-tok or Wechat. China jurisdiction is not supranational. The situation inside China is different. > Or it's another social network that you have absolutely no recourse against. If the network is operating legally in your country then you have resource. If you go out of your way and sign-up to the Somalian Buccaneers App and they rob you then you are fucked but it was basically your fault. As I know people simplify to score fake debate points, I am not saying to install tik-tok or we-chat, I did it for a few days and both are terrible apps with very creepy features. But guess what so are Instagram and Facebook, so I dont use them either. Nobody needs them really.
- hkai 6y ago> China jurisdiction is not supranational It absolutely is.
- onion2k 6y agoI think it's a draw.
- slim 6y agoWe need laws. Operating a social network should be subject to specific rules like : 1- Everything is public, no private messages. 2- Public unlimited standardised API. 3- No denial of access, no censorship, without court order.
- pferde 6y agoI get #2 and #3, but why #1? I like being able to "whisper" to people privately. Private messaging has been part of all communication protocols and pre-web2.0 social networks, and even in real life, you can lean in towards someone and, well, whisper something in their ear.
- jfengel 6y agoI suppose it might be worth recognizing that a social media system with access to your private messages both gives them a lot of power, and confuses users. Privacy on social media isn't really trustworthy. If you want to whisper, do it via email, where at least it isn't on Facebook's servers. I don't say anything on Facebook that I wouldn't want on the front page of the New York Times. I don't trust either them or other users to keep it private. (I don't even like putting sensitive things in email, if I can do it in person instead.)
- int_19h 6y agoThere's no reason why a social media platform can't implement its private messaging in a way that is functionally equivalent to email in terms of privacy (but integrated with that platform).
- pferde 6y agoFair enough - you're basically erring on the side of caution, although it limits the usefulness of the network to you. Can't say I blame you. :)
- slim 6y agoit should be clear for the user when what he says is private vs public. it should not be the same app. plus private messaging apps don't need to be regulated, they just need strong crypto.
- fx32s 6y agoI don't see how having national backed social media platforms to the likes china does is a better alternative for end users compared to facebook. If you are a proponent for open speech this will accomplish the opposite since it simplifies state issued censorship. I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't bring value to a significant share of people.
- praptak 6y agoIf it's something like BBC then I still prefer it to a private monopoly. BBC is technically national but at the same time pretty independent in its reporting.
- rpastuszak 6y agoAs an outsider who has spent the past 7 years in the UK, I feel like the definition of “pretty independent” has become a bit more fluid. But yeah, it’d be nice if my taxes were spent on the problems we’re discussing here, rather than giving people access to cheaper Tim Tams.
- gmac 6y agoI'd challenge that assumption. The BBC has arguably become much more of a state broadcaster than a public interest broadcaster in recent decades. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/can-t-afford-to-tell-the-truth https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/c...
- deathgrips 6y agoIt's a trade off. Do you want to risk being censored by your own country or risk being censored by San Francisco?
- input_sh 6y agoCan I democratically elect who will represent me in a Silicon Valley company? If not, I'm going to choose my own country. I am aware that citizens of more repressive governments might not make the same choice.
- jakequade 6y agoIn what world is having geo-specific social networks run by corporations a good outcome? "Like China" is a pretty bad north star for almost any country.
- deathgrips 6y agoWhy would it be worse than Facebook?
- fx32s 6y agoA state regulated and censored siloed system where you can't communicate across borders hardly seems like the thing to strive for if you want to displace FB. edited to reword as to not assume intentions of op
- oska 6y agoPlease don't misrepresent me. In no place in my comment did I describe WeChat as better to FB (and I'm not interested in taking a position either way). Nor was I promoting this: > A state regulated and censored siloed system where you can't communicate across borders Quite the opposite. I made it quite clear that my strong preference was for the fostering of open social networks & protocols. * edit: the parent commenter edited their comment after my reply without noting the edit.
- fx32s 6y agoSorry, I added the edit, I'm quite new to this comment section and assumed it might show my edit by default
- danielheath 6y agoI quite like the geo-specific mastodon instances I have seen (eg cloud island for NZ). For one thing, their moderation only needs to comply with local norms and laws - no need to ban e.g. “female-presenting nipples” unless your community actually wants to.
- netcan 6y agoSmall countries can ban facebook from doing certain things. Ultimately, some sovereignty exists even in global commerce. If New Zealand made (eg) political advertising, targeted advertising, or such ilegal, Facebook would stop doing it in New Zealand. That is treating the symptom, but it is not totally ineffective. Treating the problem is dealing with the monopoly. The current state of antitrust laws, norms and regulatory pressure is entirely useless. It's entirely based around regulating 19th century monopolies, and tempered by 20th century failings. Facebook, Amazon, & Google are not Bell. With the old infrastructure monopolies, regulators needed to break up the monopoly without losing the services & capital investments. They needed post-antitrust companies to still be viable. Facebook doesn't have that problem. Facebook could disappear tomorrow and consumers would barely be inconvenienced. Social media is not in short supply and doesn't require much capital. Facebook didn't need to sink much capital into building it. Their competitors will not need much capital to replace it. All they need is for Facebook to move out of the way. Antitrust action, at least in facebook's case, doesn't need to be precise. It just needs to be strong.
- justaguyhere 6y agoMaybe future generations will realize how shitty FB is and stop using it (one can hope!) A bigger problem is FB owns much better products like WhatsApp - it is easy to quit FB than WhatsApp in my opinion
- scarface74 6y agoSo you mean the solution to the FB “problem” is people using their own free will and it doesn’t involve the Nanny State?
- netcan 6y agoNanny-state/libertarian arguments against antitrust are misguided. I am against a nanny state. Deeply against it. It gets abused of power. is invariably useless and freedom is important for its own sake. Monopolies extend these problems into the commercial realm. Nanny companies instead of Nanny State. Facebook is worse than most state media monopolies. It's like living in a company town and complaining about the nanny state. Just let the company rule us in peace.
- maltelandwehr 6y agoThe majority of users/voters in most countries do not want their governments to ban Facebook. Many countries had local alternatives that went out of business because users switched to Facebook.
- Nextgrid 6y agoThe problem is that the countries most likely to block it are also the ones most likely to replace it with much worse.