3 ms·

That's the problem of the all-private internet. There is no virtual street corner at which to protest. There is no internet post office to handle your mail. The

That's the problem of the all-private internet. There is no virtual street corner at which to protest. There is no internet post office to handle your mail. There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. There is only profit. The moment you become unprofitable for whatever reason you will lose everything. If tomorrow 51% of the world decided they hated left-handed people they would all find their accounts disabled, their website registrations suspended, their entire online presence forced into secrecy. So far that's only happened, to my knowledge, to terrorists and white supremacists, but there is absolutely no legal reason why it can't happen to anyone else.

jerkstate 6y ago
>There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. speaking of shutting off water, this is happening in meatspace too: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-001106201.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-g...
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
Yep, and this is the core problem that I think much of the debate around social networks and online services in general is missing - the debate typically centers around these entities' legal rights, and completely forgets the fact that the online scenario actually has very little equivalent in the real world. The real world contains public spaces. It contains within it the recognition that some part of all of this around us, belongs to everyone. And while that has been the center of much of the rhetoric about the internet since its inception, that rhetoric has never actually been true IN FACT. It's a mishmash of private entities controlling their piece of the puzzle. I think, as another poster mentioned, if democracy is to survive, the concept of "some part of the internet and its services are a public good" must take hold. Now, that's a scary-ass thing to say because unlike a piece of land, or drinking water, these things don't just "exist". They exist only as long as some entity pays for them, which means that such a statement implies things about who pays (government? subsidies? you pay but it isn't yours? special kinds of taxes?). And yet I think avoiding dystopia requires going that way. I have no idea what it would look like. Of course, there's an alternative. Google/Twitter/FB/etc. can agree that they don't censor anyone unless that person breaks the law. That puts the discussion right back where it should have been in the first place: In the public, political sphere, where The People have the ability to influence the outcome. But then, why would Google etc. do that? Too enticing, all that power.

jerkstate 6y ago

>There is no internet water utility who isn't allowed to shut off your service no matter how many people complain about you. speaking of shutting off water, this is happening in meatspace too: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-garcetti-001106201.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/los-angeles-mayor-eric-g...

RonanTheGrey 6y ago

Yep, and this is the core problem that I think much of the debate around social networks and online services in general is missing - the debate typically centers around these entities' legal rights, and completely forgets the fact that the online scenario actually has very little equivalent in the real world. The real world contains public spaces. It contains within it the recognition that some part of all of this around us, belongs to everyone. And while that has been the center of much of the rhetoric about the internet since its inception, that rhetoric has never actually been true IN FACT. It's a mishmash of private entities controlling their piece of the puzzle. I think, as another poster mentioned, if democracy is to survive, the concept of "some part of the internet and its services are a public good" must take hold. Now, that's a scary-ass thing to say because unlike a piece of land, or drinking water, these things don't just "exist". They exist only as long as some entity pays for them, which means that such a statement implies things about who pays (government? subsidies? you pay but it isn't yours? special kinds of taxes?). And yet I think avoiding dystopia requires going that way. I have no idea what it would look like. Of course, there's an alternative. Google/Twitter/FB/etc. can agree that they don't censor anyone unless that person breaks the law. That puts the discussion right back where it should have been in the first place: In the public, political sphere, where The People have the ability to influence the outcome. But then, why would Google etc. do that? Too enticing, all that power.