3 ms·

No, this is about the facts of the organizational structure, not about shared values or passive consent. Users are not Facebook's constituents, they are its su

No, this is about the facts of the organizational structure, not about shared values or passive consent. Users are not Facebook's constituents, they are its subjects. They have two choices: submit to Facebook's board of directors, or leave. The authority of the board room over the users is nominally absolute. There's no representative body that is accountable to the users, there's no ownership or stake in their own data or in the assets of Facebook itself.

bhupy 6y ago
What you're not understanding is that the authority over the users is NOT absolute, because "or leave" is the mechanism by which users can influence the strategic direction of a company. That's the accountability. That's why we call this "voting with your wallet". To the extent that Facebook is the way that it is, it's because it's meeting the needs of a lot of users on the planet. There's obviously no "ownership stake", because that doesn't make any sense: I don't have ownership stake in my toothpaste provider. But I can stop using their product if their product sucks.
- jdauriemma 6y ago
  People could leave King Louis XIV’s France. That didn’t make the Bourbon dynasty any less of an absolutist entity. And yes, it’s impractical to think of users as having an inherent ownership stake in contemporary society, but it’s one mechanism by which users could gain true agency in social networks. Another would be a representative body elected by users that has the power to appoint board members. It’s these sorts of formal, institutional structures that distinguish autocracy from democracy.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > People could leave King Louis XIV’s France Refusing to use a single product is not nearly the same as leaving a country. Drawing a similarity between the two is like comparing apples to nation states. The reason private markets generally work pretty well at delivering goods & services is because people have variety, and exercising choice is generally feasible. Anti-trust law is generally rooted in rectifying situations where this ceases to be true. > Another would be a representative body elected by users that has the power to appoint board members. What you're describing here is a government agency — and if your argument is that a government agency can run a software product better than a private corporation...it's a bold claim, even if it's a coherent argument.
    - jdauriemma 6y ago
      I never said it was “the same” to the individual, it’s just a similar governance model. The domain of a kingdom and the domain of a corporate social network are distinct, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore that they’re both autocratic in their respective domains.

bhupy 6y ago

What you're not understanding is that the authority over the users is NOT absolute, because "or leave" is the mechanism by which users can influence the strategic direction of a company. That's the accountability. That's why we call this "voting with your wallet". To the extent that Facebook is the way that it is, it's because it's meeting the needs of a lot of users on the planet. There's obviously no "ownership stake", because that doesn't make any sense: I don't have ownership stake in my toothpaste provider. But I can stop using their product if their product sucks.

jdauriemma 6y ago
People could leave King Louis XIV’s France. That didn’t make the Bourbon dynasty any less of an absolutist entity. And yes, it’s impractical to think of users as having an inherent ownership stake in contemporary society, but it’s one mechanism by which users could gain true agency in social networks. Another would be a representative body elected by users that has the power to appoint board members. It’s these sorts of formal, institutional structures that distinguish autocracy from democracy.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > People could leave King Louis XIV’s France Refusing to use a single product is not nearly the same as leaving a country. Drawing a similarity between the two is like comparing apples to nation states. The reason private markets generally work pretty well at delivering goods & services is because people have variety, and exercising choice is generally feasible. Anti-trust law is generally rooted in rectifying situations where this ceases to be true. > Another would be a representative body elected by users that has the power to appoint board members. What you're describing here is a government agency — and if your argument is that a government agency can run a software product better than a private corporation...it's a bold claim, even if it's a coherent argument.
  - jdauriemma 6y ago
    I never said it was “the same” to the individual, it’s just a similar governance model. The domain of a kingdom and the domain of a corporate social network are distinct, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore that they’re both autocratic in their respective domains.