3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.