2 ms·

This comment was on a dupe thread and I'm adding it here in case this gets un-flagged. There is a good reason to discuss this: I sympathize with the argument t

This comment was on a dupe thread and I'm adding it here in case this gets un-flagged. There is a good reason to discuss this: I sympathize with the argument that social platforms are private and can do business (or not) with whomever they please, the counter argument is that these platforms are "Radical Monopolies" (https://wikitia.com/wiki/Radical_Monopoly https://wikitia.com/wiki/Radical_Monopoly) apropos of a recent HN thread on Ivan Illich, where the analogy for the effect of being kicked off a platform is not like Ford declining to sell you a car where you can just go get another one, but rather, cancelling your license in Los Angeles. It's not 1:1, but if you lose your drivers license in a city like LA or non-coastal state, your ability to participate in society (find work, etc) and your social franchise in society is diminished because the automobile has a radical monopoly in American cities. Twitter and social platforms like Facebook have definitely become radical monopolies for reputation, where if you have no social media presence, you are excluded socially. (Regarding Facebook, try find a date without an instagram page.) Facebook execs even commented publicly early on that people without Facebook accounts should be treated as suspicious. That QAnon types are so ridiculous and indefensible is what makes them a great example for discussing how and whether to protect minority views. Twitter does have the right to do what they want, and I'm optimistic that these purges will create demand for the divergent platforms that will replace this first generation of them, but to say this right is simple and natural ignores precedents of radical monopolies that were enabled and sustained by political protection, which seems naive. The non-libertarian case for limiting social platforms ability to purge can be summed up in president Obama's thoughts,when he said, "you didn't build that." Arguably, social platforms that rely on network effects to become radical monopolies didn't "build that," either.

shadowgovt 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "enabled and sustained by political protection" in this context. Facebook and Twitter didn't have to build the web infrastructure, but there were other social networks in existence before those two became dominant. I'm not sure how we perceive their network effects as non-self-built. Facebook beat out competitors with two advantages: access to primary sources (they primed the network with college students) and requirement to use real names, which set them apart from other persona-based social networks at the time and encouraged people to be their "normal selves" on FB. Turns out, that's what a lot of people wanted; relative to the cyberpunk-esque other options, it felt "normal and safe." They made a market choice and it paid off for them.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Social media could not have originated anywhere else in the world because the platforms were built on freedoms and opportunities guaranteed by the US. Facebook was a way for people who went to Harvard to tell people they went to Harvard without having to actually say it, and for everyone else to be seen know them - Facebook didn't build Harvard, but it is an effect of it. Twitter is an artifact of speech protections and nerds, and now that it has arrived it's trying to cast off the taint of trade to become a walled suburb safe for middle class banalities. Did a few thousand lines of code create billions in value, or did a society with a network effect produce it?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I don't think I disagree with your assessment of Twitter, but I don't see the problem. It happens all the time. The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick around; pioneers with more risk tolerance (or a thirst for that kind of experience) then often set out for new territory to tame.
    - motohagiography 6y ago
      It's funny how extending that analogy begs the question in the small matter of what to do about the natives, which is loosely analogous to the problem of social media, where you colonize and coopt, and then have the issue of what to do with the subjugated people. Not a lot of "right thing," and "good guy," stuff there. The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's progress, but just don't look behind the curtain, and certainly don't be as sanctimonious as the social media platform execs have been.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        The Internet is no more than 50 years old, and Twitter less than 15. There are no 'natives' here; the "land" Twitter occupied (to absolutely torture an analogy) didn't exist until the twitter.com domain was registered and the service was set up. There may be people who helped Twitter gain widespread adoption by their fame who are now feeling taken advantage of by Twitter changing its rules to kick them off their service. Maybe we can bend the analogy far enough to call them 'displaced natives?' Do such people exist though? I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of QAnon supporters and long-lived Twitter luminaries is two circles. Even if we accept the notion of "Twitter natives," we seem to raise the question of who the "displaced natives" are when regular Twitter users have to put up with this novel conspiracy nonsense.

shadowgovt 6y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "enabled and sustained by political protection" in this context. Facebook and Twitter didn't have to build the web infrastructure, but there were other social networks in existence before those two became dominant. I'm not sure how we perceive their network effects as non-self-built. Facebook beat out competitors with two advantages: access to primary sources (they primed the network with college students) and requirement to use real names, which set them apart from other persona-based social networks at the time and encouraged people to be their "normal selves" on FB. Turns out, that's what a lot of people wanted; relative to the cyberpunk-esque other options, it felt "normal and safe." They made a market choice and it paid off for them.

motohagiography 6y ago
Social media could not have originated anywhere else in the world because the platforms were built on freedoms and opportunities guaranteed by the US. Facebook was a way for people who went to Harvard to tell people they went to Harvard without having to actually say it, and for everyone else to be seen know them - Facebook didn't build Harvard, but it is an effect of it. Twitter is an artifact of speech protections and nerds, and now that it has arrived it's trying to cast off the taint of trade to become a walled suburb safe for middle class banalities. Did a few thousand lines of code create billions in value, or did a society with a network effect produce it?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I don't think I disagree with your assessment of Twitter, but I don't see the problem. It happens all the time. The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick around; pioneers with more risk tolerance (or a thirst for that kind of experience) then often set out for new territory to tame.
  - motohagiography 6y ago
    It's funny how extending that analogy begs the question in the small matter of what to do about the natives, which is loosely analogous to the problem of social media, where you colonize and coopt, and then have the issue of what to do with the subjugated people. Not a lot of "right thing," and "good guy," stuff there. The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's progress, but just don't look behind the curtain, and certainly don't be as sanctimonious as the social media platform execs have been.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      The Internet is no more than 50 years old, and Twitter less than 15. There are no 'natives' here; the "land" Twitter occupied (to absolutely torture an analogy) didn't exist until the twitter.com domain was registered and the service was set up. There may be people who helped Twitter gain widespread adoption by their fame who are now feeling taken advantage of by Twitter changing its rules to kick them off their service. Maybe we can bend the analogy far enough to call them 'displaced natives?' Do such people exist though? I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of QAnon supporters and long-lived Twitter luminaries is two circles. Even if we accept the notion of "Twitter natives," we seem to raise the question of who the "displaced natives" are when regular Twitter users have to put up with this novel conspiracy nonsense.