10 ms·

Combined with the latest twitter bout of censorship, the hammer is going to hit tech soon... very hard. They are running out of friends on both the left and ri

by swalsh 6y ago

Combined with the latest twitter bout of censorship, the hammer is going to hit tech soon... very hard. They are running out of friends on both the left and right.

peteretep 6y ago
What are some ways in which Twitter is anti-competitive or acting like a monopoly?
- stevehawk 6y ago
  twitter isn't doing those, they're losing friends through censorship. which they legally have every right to, but the powers that be are now campaigning to change that legal protection (exemption? sinve no one understands the second amendment)
  - trident1000 6y ago
    They have every right to do it legally and you're right that the rules will probably change. People say "just go and make another platform" but Google literally tried and failed to make their own (Google+). If they cant do it who really can? Its not happening or it will take centuries/enormous resources to gain traction and compete. So we are left with an oligopoly that is censoring in lockstep and that's an issue for all sides because eventually its not them, its you, with time (amongst other issues). I think the platforms are a huge threat to democracy personally and I hope the new rules are meaningful and not just a knee jerk makeshift reaction.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      That argument of "just go and make another platform" is misled anyways: Even if I build another platform: Twitter is still the primary communication channel of the US President. Which means that all secondary users (interested citizens, journalists, ...) hang out there as well. Thus whoever they block there or not has an impact, even if my competitor has a few hundred million users.
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      Google+ just wasn't very good, the argument that no one else can do it doesn't sit right with me because google was half assing that from the beginning.
      - trident1000 6y ago
        I think those are the optics because it never took off so it looked half-assed but they made an effort (Google+ was also launched a long time ago so it looks antiquated by todays standards). Maybe a better argument is that its been decades and nobody is meaningfully competing with facebook or Twitter in their respective categories even though there is tremendous economic incentive to do so. Network effects are very difficult to break. When the president is on Twitter nobody wants to be on Bob's basement network. Its locked in a feedback loop. Follow up comment here because Ive apparently reached my limit for a while: I believe you. I still think a Google half-ass is going to be a stronger effort than another start ups full out stab at it. Facebook is the biggest "country" on earth almost by a factor of 2x with 2.7 billion people. Its just other worldy large and difficult to compete with especially today. But I get what you're saying.
        Grimm1 6y ago
        I was following pretty heavy at the time, and unfortunately "made an effort" looked pretty poor to me. You are right network effects are difficult and if google wanted to throw it's full weight behind the problem instead of just dipping their toes they had the capital to shift opinion. I think this is far more likely google didn't have the will to make that a fully focused problem.
    - rgbrenner 6y ago
      Social media platforms are mature enough that half hearted efforts like Google’s won’t work. But tiktok and Snapchat work. You know: real sustained efforts. Instagram launched 9 months before google plus. That should give you an idea of the landscape that google operated in. Instagram— with 13 employees at acquisition in 2012– works. Google isn’t a determiner of what works. They’re one of the laziest implementers of new services/startups.. they literally throw something out there and try to coast off their name. In markets where the customers are mostly satisfied, lazy stuff like that doesn’t create a winning product.
      - trident1000 6y ago
        Sometimes a narrow lane is found in social media in general, but I would argue the competition is still minimal or non existent for crossing lanes. For instance Twitter and snapchat and Tiktok are very different. I view the social media landscape as an oligopoly rather than monopolistic and they rarely cross into each others territory. Also the rate of new meaningful competitors just is not occurring fast enough when a democracy like the US has elections every 4 years. Theres a mismatch in competitor lane crossing and the rate at which democracy operates. Theres been what...2 or 3 major new social networks with limited scope that dont really compete with each other in 20 years on the western side? Its just not enough to make an impact and give people choice especially as we see them act in tandum.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      A separate platform requires a compelling story. Google proves merely that money and dev talent aren't enough no matter how much you have of either or both.
  - aristophenes 6y ago
    You’re allowed to say whatever you want and I’m allowed to sue you if you tell lies about me. Twitter and other social media platforms are made exempt from this because they are hosting other people’s content and they’d be sued into oblivion if they could be held responsible for what everyone posts on their service. But as soon as they start censoring whatever they want, they aren’t a true public platform anymore, the content you see is what they want you to see. So they should also be liable to civil suits if the information they allow to disseminate is not true. This isn’t about the second amendment, IMO.
    - DominoTree 6y ago
      It's DEFINITELY not about the second amendment.
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        I don't know, maybe content recommendations systems could be considered weapons...
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      They were NEVER a public platform they were always a private company. Its a commonly repeated untruth that as soon as they start moderating they cease to be protected. Nothing could be further from the truth 230 specifically protects their right to moderate.
      - Zak 6y ago
        People advocating that position usually have a very specific idea about how they want sites to be moderated, but section 230 is about not treating platforms as if they're the speaker when one of their users posts illegal speech, regardless of moderation. Of course, politically biased speech is not illegal, so it's really about punishing platforms for moderation somebody doesn't like. A more reasonable target for a 230 carve-out would be recommendation algorithms. Those aren't merely passively hosting user-generated content, but actively selecting what they think you should see to keep you engaged with the platform. Featuring content rather than showing it ordered by some simple criterion like time should be treated as editorializing rather than moderation. If a human editor decides to feature lies I tweet about you on their "best tweets of the week" page, you may be able to sue them for libel. If twitter's algorithm shows lies I tweet about you to a large audience, you currently can't.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I agree that the second amendment is often debated as to its intended (or proper) meaning, but I think you're talking about first amendment protections here.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    The powers that wont be are complaining about censorship but as we all look back on the last 4 years and all the dead people the people running the government for the last 4 years are more apt to ask social media why they didn't do more.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- afiori 6y ago
  Based on what I see people complain about in twitter the criticism is on a different axis: selective and inconsistent application of rules to appease whatever group they are worried at the moment. In terms of regulations this is within reach of possible changes to how the notorious section 230 is applied. I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU for a competent commentary.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    I don't think he understands the Streisand effect in this context. It was inevitable either way that the majority would hear about the fake Hunter Biden story the ideal case for both the truth and for Biden is that people hear about it in the context of it being fake crap being propagated by an unreliable source instead of having it laundered through a million and one personal contacts who can rightfully claim to be sharing a legit piece of news. “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” C. H. Spurgeon, Whereas a truth is may be amplified by ineffective blocking a lie may be irreparably damaged if the truth gets there first. Regarding 230 the primary author of the statute disagrees with Thomas. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/author-section-230-chris-cox-says-all-critics-are-wrong-about-history-intent-230.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/autho... Justice Thomas is the Giligan of the supreme court. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-twenty-five-years-without-footprints https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas... >Why was this? It is because Thomas is not a conservative but, rather, a radical—one whose entire career on the Court has been devoted to undermining the rules of precedent in favor of his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution.
    - afiori 6y ago
      Personally this sounds like an intensely editorial decision on Twitter side then. Anyway what I was referring to was how Twitter's moderators decided to restrict this news based on it being obtained through hacking, but few days ago had nothing against Trump tax story that was based on illegally obtained documents.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  I think they put a small fact-check badge on one of Trump's tweets. Classic monopolistic behavior. Basically 1984.
- neya 6y ago
  This may not directly relate to monopolistic behaviour - but I remember once (pretty recently) when Jack/someone in his team revealed a screenshot of an interface in their backend that literally allows them to control public mood and opinion- such as trends, shadow banning, etc. To me, that is scarier than just being a monopoly. Imagine, you pull the right switches during an election campaign that could sway public opinions in the last minute (regardless of the political party you support). How they aren't under serious scrutiny after releasing such interfaces to the public is a grave concern to me.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    I have even stronger concerns about Murdoch's media empire. Whatever Twitter might or might not be doing is child's play compared to what Murdoch is definitely doing.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      Yikes—what are some examples?
    - briandear 6y ago
      Except Murdoch has significant competition.
      - 8note 6y ago
        Is competition enough to avoid that manipulation?
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  These types of social interactions aren’t fungible. There are a finite number of viable social interactions to be discovered. Once discovered, network effects push towards consolidation to one platform offering that experience. If you consider “social media” as a market, it has healthy competitive landscape. If you consider different styles of social interaction as separate markets, they’ve cornered markets. I don’t see competition in these spaces. Facebook != Twitter, and I feel that is why both can exist. Behemoths in neighboring spaces opt to buy a social experience instead of trying to compete with their own. The missing piece, IMO, isn’t regulation around “censorship” for these platforms. It’s regulation that results in a rich market of products around a single style of social interaction. Example: regulation around interoperability.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    The social media companies are arguing that "social media" is not an industry by itself. They certainly aren't going to have to argue that they don't have a monopoly on a specific genre of social media.
  - d0gbread 6y ago
    This 100%, well put. Within businesses, people have evolved far past market definitions where widget x¹ competes with widget x². Our political savvy as consumers would improve if we could see that as well. For example, why would Google approve a product like Stadia? What does it compete with? Nintendo, yes but not really, since so many Stadia players have a Switch also... just like most of us have Facebook and Twitter accounts. But maybe they're true competition is Netflix? Social media? Users are giving Google their time = data = insights = further monopolistic advertising power.
    - harshitaneja 6y ago
      I am not sure exclusively is a requirement for being considered competition. Netflix and Disney Plus are competitors but that doesn't stop me from subscribing to both.
  - wadkar 6y ago
- josteink 6y ago
  > What are some ways in which Twitter is anti-competitive or acting like a monopoly? You don’t have to be anti-competitive or abusing a monopoly to be the target of regulation.
smokebutnofire 6y ago
If the election goes to Twitters preferred candidate they might just find that they have a very friendly administration to work with in a few months.
chris_wot 6y ago
That twitter “censorship” is them finally applying their user acceptance policy to even the most powerful.
CameronNemo 6y ago
Twitter and Google are not the same... At all.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Congressmen may not realize this.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    From watching the past several times they've been called before congress, it's abundantly clear that several congressmen (mostly from one party) do not.
theon144 6y ago
Heh, way to make this a political issue and shoehorn in a completely unrelated topic. And who even is "they"? The entire tech sector? FAANG? Or just whoever makes the rounds in the news at any given point?
- rocqua 6y ago
  In general, the issue of "Big tech companies have very large influence and are unchecked"

by swalsh 6y ago

Combined with the latest twitter bout of censorship, the hammer is going to hit tech soon... very hard. They are running out of friends on both the left and right.

peteretep 6y ago

What are some ways in which Twitter is anti-competitive or acting like a monopoly?

stevehawk 6y ago
twitter isn't doing those, they're losing friends through censorship. which they legally have every right to, but the powers that be are now campaigning to change that legal protection (exemption? sinve no one understands the second amendment)
- trident1000 6y ago
  They have every right to do it legally and you're right that the rules will probably change. People say "just go and make another platform" but Google literally tried and failed to make their own (Google+). If they cant do it who really can? Its not happening or it will take centuries/enormous resources to gain traction and compete. So we are left with an oligopoly that is censoring in lockstep and that's an issue for all sides because eventually its not them, its you, with time (amongst other issues). I think the platforms are a huge threat to democracy personally and I hope the new rules are meaningful and not just a knee jerk makeshift reaction.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    That argument of "just go and make another platform" is misled anyways: Even if I build another platform: Twitter is still the primary communication channel of the US President. Which means that all secondary users (interested citizens, journalists, ...) hang out there as well. Thus whoever they block there or not has an impact, even if my competitor has a few hundred million users.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    Google+ just wasn't very good, the argument that no one else can do it doesn't sit right with me because google was half assing that from the beginning.
    - trident1000 6y ago
      I think those are the optics because it never took off so it looked half-assed but they made an effort (Google+ was also launched a long time ago so it looks antiquated by todays standards). Maybe a better argument is that its been decades and nobody is meaningfully competing with facebook or Twitter in their respective categories even though there is tremendous economic incentive to do so. Network effects are very difficult to break. When the president is on Twitter nobody wants to be on Bob's basement network. Its locked in a feedback loop. Follow up comment here because Ive apparently reached my limit for a while: I believe you. I still think a Google half-ass is going to be a stronger effort than another start ups full out stab at it. Facebook is the biggest "country" on earth almost by a factor of 2x with 2.7 billion people. Its just other worldy large and difficult to compete with especially today. But I get what you're saying.
      - Grimm1 6y ago
        I was following pretty heavy at the time, and unfortunately "made an effort" looked pretty poor to me. You are right network effects are difficult and if google wanted to throw it's full weight behind the problem instead of just dipping their toes they had the capital to shift opinion. I think this is far more likely google didn't have the will to make that a fully focused problem.
  - rgbrenner 6y ago
    Social media platforms are mature enough that half hearted efforts like Google’s won’t work. But tiktok and Snapchat work. You know: real sustained efforts. Instagram launched 9 months before google plus. That should give you an idea of the landscape that google operated in. Instagram— with 13 employees at acquisition in 2012– works. Google isn’t a determiner of what works. They’re one of the laziest implementers of new services/startups.. they literally throw something out there and try to coast off their name. In markets where the customers are mostly satisfied, lazy stuff like that doesn’t create a winning product.
    - trident1000 6y ago
      Sometimes a narrow lane is found in social media in general, but I would argue the competition is still minimal or non existent for crossing lanes. For instance Twitter and snapchat and Tiktok are very different. I view the social media landscape as an oligopoly rather than monopolistic and they rarely cross into each others territory. Also the rate of new meaningful competitors just is not occurring fast enough when a democracy like the US has elections every 4 years. Theres a mismatch in competitor lane crossing and the rate at which democracy operates. Theres been what...2 or 3 major new social networks with limited scope that dont really compete with each other in 20 years on the western side? Its just not enough to make an impact and give people choice especially as we see them act in tandum.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    A separate platform requires a compelling story. Google proves merely that money and dev talent aren't enough no matter how much you have of either or both.
- aristophenes 6y ago
  You’re allowed to say whatever you want and I’m allowed to sue you if you tell lies about me. Twitter and other social media platforms are made exempt from this because they are hosting other people’s content and they’d be sued into oblivion if they could be held responsible for what everyone posts on their service. But as soon as they start censoring whatever they want, they aren’t a true public platform anymore, the content you see is what they want you to see. So they should also be liable to civil suits if the information they allow to disseminate is not true. This isn’t about the second amendment, IMO.
  - DominoTree 6y ago
    It's DEFINITELY not about the second amendment.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      I don't know, maybe content recommendations systems could be considered weapons...
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    They were NEVER a public platform they were always a private company. Its a commonly repeated untruth that as soon as they start moderating they cease to be protected. Nothing could be further from the truth 230 specifically protects their right to moderate.
    - Zak 6y ago
      People advocating that position usually have a very specific idea about how they want sites to be moderated, but section 230 is about not treating platforms as if they're the speaker when one of their users posts illegal speech, regardless of moderation. Of course, politically biased speech is not illegal, so it's really about punishing platforms for moderation somebody doesn't like. A more reasonable target for a 230 carve-out would be recommendation algorithms. Those aren't merely passively hosting user-generated content, but actively selecting what they think you should see to keep you engaged with the platform. Featuring content rather than showing it ordered by some simple criterion like time should be treated as editorializing rather than moderation. If a human editor decides to feature lies I tweet about you on their "best tweets of the week" page, you may be able to sue them for libel. If twitter's algorithm shows lies I tweet about you to a large audience, you currently can't.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I agree that the second amendment is often debated as to its intended (or proper) meaning, but I think you're talking about first amendment protections here.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The powers that wont be are complaining about censorship but as we all look back on the last 4 years and all the dead people the people running the government for the last 4 years are more apt to ask social media why they didn't do more.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
afiori 6y ago
Based on what I see people complain about in twitter the criticism is on a different axis: selective and inconsistent application of rules to appease whatever group they are worried at the moment. In terms of regulations this is within reach of possible changes to how the notorious section 230 is applied. I recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OhE4w0TAU for a competent commentary.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  I don't think he understands the Streisand effect in this context. It was inevitable either way that the majority would hear about the fake Hunter Biden story the ideal case for both the truth and for Biden is that people hear about it in the context of it being fake crap being propagated by an unreliable source instead of having it laundered through a million and one personal contacts who can rightfully claim to be sharing a legit piece of news. “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” C. H. Spurgeon, Whereas a truth is may be amplified by ineffective blocking a lie may be irreparably damaged if the truth gets there first. Regarding 230 the primary author of the statute disagrees with Thomas. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/author-section-230-chris-cox-says-all-critics-are-wrong-about-history-intent-230.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/autho... Justice Thomas is the Giligan of the supreme court. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-twenty-five-years-without-footprints https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas... >Why was this? It is because Thomas is not a conservative but, rather, a radical—one whose entire career on the Court has been devoted to undermining the rules of precedent in favor of his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution.
  - afiori 6y ago
    Personally this sounds like an intensely editorial decision on Twitter side then. Anyway what I was referring to was how Twitter's moderators decided to restrict this news based on it being obtained through hacking, but few days ago had nothing against Trump tax story that was based on illegally obtained documents.
jjoonathan 6y ago
I think they put a small fact-check badge on one of Trump's tweets. Classic monopolistic behavior. Basically 1984.
neya 6y ago
This may not directly relate to monopolistic behaviour - but I remember once (pretty recently) when Jack/someone in his team revealed a screenshot of an interface in their backend that literally allows them to control public mood and opinion- such as trends, shadow banning, etc. To me, that is scarier than just being a monopoly. Imagine, you pull the right switches during an election campaign that could sway public opinions in the last minute (regardless of the political party you support). How they aren't under serious scrutiny after releasing such interfaces to the public is a grave concern to me.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  I have even stronger concerns about Murdoch's media empire. Whatever Twitter might or might not be doing is child's play compared to what Murdoch is definitely doing.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    Yikes—what are some examples?
  - briandear 6y ago
    Except Murdoch has significant competition.
    - 8note 6y ago
      Is competition enough to avoid that manipulation?
r3trohack3r 6y ago
These types of social interactions aren’t fungible. There are a finite number of viable social interactions to be discovered. Once discovered, network effects push towards consolidation to one platform offering that experience. If you consider “social media” as a market, it has healthy competitive landscape. If you consider different styles of social interaction as separate markets, they’ve cornered markets. I don’t see competition in these spaces. Facebook != Twitter, and I feel that is why both can exist. Behemoths in neighboring spaces opt to buy a social experience instead of trying to compete with their own. The missing piece, IMO, isn’t regulation around “censorship” for these platforms. It’s regulation that results in a rich market of products around a single style of social interaction. Example: regulation around interoperability.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  The social media companies are arguing that "social media" is not an industry by itself. They certainly aren't going to have to argue that they don't have a monopoly on a specific genre of social media.
- d0gbread 6y ago
  This 100%, well put. Within businesses, people have evolved far past market definitions where widget x¹ competes with widget x². Our political savvy as consumers would improve if we could see that as well. For example, why would Google approve a product like Stadia? What does it compete with? Nintendo, yes but not really, since so many Stadia players have a Switch also... just like most of us have Facebook and Twitter accounts. But maybe they're true competition is Netflix? Social media? Users are giving Google their time = data = insights = further monopolistic advertising power.
  - harshitaneja 6y ago
    I am not sure exclusively is a requirement for being considered competition. Netflix and Disney Plus are competitors but that doesn't stop me from subscribing to both.
- wadkar 6y ago
josteink 6y ago
> What are some ways in which Twitter is anti-competitive or acting like a monopoly? You don’t have to be anti-competitive or abusing a monopoly to be the target of regulation.

smokebutnofire 6y ago

If the election goes to Twitters preferred candidate they might just find that they have a very friendly administration to work with in a few months.

chris_wot 6y ago

That twitter “censorship” is them finally applying their user acceptance policy to even the most powerful.

CameronNemo 6y ago

Twitter and Google are not the same... At all.

monadic2 6y ago
Congressmen may not realize this.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  From watching the past several times they've been called before congress, it's abundantly clear that several congressmen (mostly from one party) do not.

theon144 6y ago

Heh, way to make this a political issue and shoehorn in a completely unrelated topic. And who even is "they"? The entire tech sector? FAANG? Or just whoever makes the rounds in the news at any given point?

rocqua 6y ago
In general, the issue of "Big tech companies have very large influence and are unchecked"