5 ms·

I fundamentally disagree with your premise that these incumbent commercial social media services are a communications fabric. These companies are in no way comm

by riffic 6y ago

I fundamentally disagree with your premise that these incumbent commercial social media services are a communications fabric. These companies are in no way common carrier, critical communications media. The underlying physical infrastructure, sure, the underlying standards like the TCP/IP stack, DNS, Ethernet, etc, well those are too, but these are categorically not quite same as what you are arguing should also be included in that group.

username90 6y ago
It is about political power, Facebook and Twitter shouldn't have the power to significantly alter elections by selectively choosing what information people see.
- riffic 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter make money through the sale of advertisements and the sale of data for market research purposes. If their power needs to be moderated, people can do like the old television days and boycott their advertisers: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/28/arts/a-boycott-of-tv-advertisers-is-again-threatened.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/28/arts/a-boycott-of-tv-adve...
  - manigandham 6y ago
    The "old television days" are long over. Considering the size of these companies and their advertisers, there is no way that boycotting or other protest would make any impact. You're dealing in fantasies from an obsolete era.
  - username90 6y ago
    Basically everyone advertises there. So boycotting their advertisers is like boycotting earning money because your disagree with the government and want to hurt their tax revenue.
manigandham 6y ago
But why? You offer no explanation other than saying you disagree. What exactly is the difference? More people communicate over social media than phone lines today. Why is the former not equivalent to the later? Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey said that he believes social media is a human right - do you disagree with him?
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  You keep talking about social media in general but the question is whether Twitter and Facebook specifically--just those two companies--are critical infrastructure. Obviously Twitter is not because it has been down for about an hour now and life is going on just fine.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    I'm not sure that "critical infrastructure" as regards to communications mediums and legislation should be understood in the terms of absolute necessity, rather by terms of popularity and wide usage. That wide usage brings with it a lot of power on the part of the platform owners and a certain immunity to being boycotted or replaced. The critical question is if they ought to be allowed to wield that power unchecked, up to and including when that reach has progressed far enough to have real impacts on our political system, and so impacts on people's lives. Remember, we're talking about what we'd like the law to be, not what the law is. These definitions are up for debate and redefinition.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Of course they ought to be allowed to affect the political system. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that private citizens can act to change the government—the fundamental concept behind the design of the U.S. federal government. News organizations have wielded this power for at least a century. Their decisions on what stories to publish obviously have political implications, and in some cases their editorial boards even explicitly endorse one candidate. Facebook and Twitter are private entities, just like The NY Times or Fox News.

by riffic 6y ago

username90 6y ago

It is about political power, Facebook and Twitter shouldn't have the power to significantly alter elections by selectively choosing what information people see.

riffic 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter make money through the sale of advertisements and the sale of data for market research purposes. If their power needs to be moderated, people can do like the old television days and boycott their advertisers: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/28/arts/a-boycott-of-tv-advertisers-is-again-threatened.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/28/arts/a-boycott-of-tv-adve...
- manigandham 6y ago
  The "old television days" are long over. Considering the size of these companies and their advertisers, there is no way that boycotting or other protest would make any impact. You're dealing in fantasies from an obsolete era.
- username90 6y ago
  Basically everyone advertises there. So boycotting their advertisers is like boycotting earning money because your disagree with the government and want to hurt their tax revenue.

manigandham 6y ago

But why? You offer no explanation other than saying you disagree. What exactly is the difference? More people communicate over social media than phone lines today. Why is the former not equivalent to the later? Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey said that he believes social media is a human right - do you disagree with him?

snowwrestler 6y ago
You keep talking about social media in general but the question is whether Twitter and Facebook specifically--just those two companies--are critical infrastructure. Obviously Twitter is not because it has been down for about an hour now and life is going on just fine.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  I'm not sure that "critical infrastructure" as regards to communications mediums and legislation should be understood in the terms of absolute necessity, rather by terms of popularity and wide usage. That wide usage brings with it a lot of power on the part of the platform owners and a certain immunity to being boycotted or replaced. The critical question is if they ought to be allowed to wield that power unchecked, up to and including when that reach has progressed far enough to have real impacts on our political system, and so impacts on people's lives. Remember, we're talking about what we'd like the law to be, not what the law is. These definitions are up for debate and redefinition.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Of course they ought to be allowed to affect the political system. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that private citizens can act to change the government—the fundamental concept behind the design of the U.S. federal government. News organizations have wielded this power for at least a century. Their decisions on what stories to publish obviously have political implications, and in some cases their editorial boards even explicitly endorse one candidate. Facebook and Twitter are private entities, just like The NY Times or Fox News.