4 ms·

I suspect the real problem is that we have no property rights online. If channels, accounts, online storefronts, followings and content were recognized as belon

I suspect the real problem is that we have no property rights online. If channels, accounts, online storefronts, followings and content were recognized as belonging to users, it would substantially change the dynamics around deplatforming, as well as anti-competitive activity by the majors.

julienb_sea 6y ago
But they don't belong to users. At best users are leasing the space (for free). There are basic agreements around behavior which are conditional for use, and generally reasonable. The problem is the grey area, and people's political views and biases strongly affect what they think is or is not following the rules. That makes the rules extremely hard to enforce in a manner that keeps people satisfied.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  You could say the same thing about bank accounts! People are just leasing the space for free (&c) but the law recognizes an ownership interest in the material in the account, a right to the returns, &c. Banks do have certain rights with regards to the account, as well -- that's how they make any money at all -- but it's much more granular than the situation we presently have with online accounts.
  - wmf 6y ago
    I don't know if that's a good analogy. Banks can also shut down your account at will; they have to give you your money but they don't have to continue providing any services. And banking is private but social media is public. It's reasonable that if a social network closes your account they should give you a backup, but forcing social networks to continue hosting offensive material in public because the user "owns" their account sounds untenable, especially since the user doesn't pay.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      No one is arguing that they should be forced to continue to host offensive material. What we're talking about, is giving people standing to take Facebook to court if their account is suspended for posting something that is true and substantive. There are many examples of this in the recent past, but perhaps the most surprising is those Facebook accounts who posted material indicating that Kamala Harris's record on gun rights in California is not encouraging for gun owners (not difficult material to fact check -- she activated the handgun roster) and found themselves suspended because, according to Facebook fact checkers, "Kamala Harris is pro 2nd Amendment". More controversially, it is now being argued that Twitter's recent suspension of the New York Post was entirely baseless: that there was no reason for the social network to conclude that the news agency was reporting the products of disinformation. The way property rights usually work, you aren't able to force people to treat you fairly in a particular situation, but you can take them to court over it and be made whole. The system certainly functions as an aggregate encouragement to treat other people fairly but only in rare situations are you going to see people forced to perform in a particular way. People would still lose their accounts but expanded rights would give them a way to pursue a remedy.
wmf 6y ago
Get yourself an ASN, an IP prefix, and a domain name.
krapp 6y ago
> If channels, accounts, online storefronts, followings and content were recognized as belonging to users, it would substantially change the dynamics around deplatforming, as well as anti-competitive activity by the majors. Why should these belong to the users when the software hosting them, the servers running the software, and the infrastructure running the servers are all owned, operated and maintained by a third party? That's like saying I should own my table at a restaurant simply because when I walk in and sit down, they serve food to me there. Using a service has never entitled you to an ownership share of the establishment.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  It's like saying you own the "business" behind the restaurant -- brand and so forth -- even if you're renting the space. It's kind of like how you own the assets in your bank account and have a right to the returns on them even though the building, the accounting software, the IP and internal best practices supporting it are all (usually) owned by the bank. We need to recognize the property interest of users in what they built -- in their content, following, online store, &c -- as a separate matter from the from the platform's ownership of its infrastructure, best practices and organization.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Bank accounts already have contracts and terms regulated for the actual legal obligations. We "need" nothing else for shouts to the void as nobody gives enough of a shit to set up and use more guaranteed terms and any arguments are just as timely, sane, and useful as saying we need to make blood oaths legally binding and have notaries for them. No we don't we really don't.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      The terms we "already" have for bank accounts are due to a long interplay between consumers, banks, and regulators.
  - krapp 6y ago
root_axis 6y ago
Before we start socializing the property rights of websites, can we do housing and medical infrastructure first? Especially all the companies with exclusive rights to life saving drugs.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  It's not socialization...if anything, it's greater privatization of property. Think about the situation that obtains with a bank account: the law recognizes that the account holder owns the content of the account, without them having to own the bank or even a share of the bank.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > The law recognizes that the account holder owns the content of the account Yes, because the money being deposited is already owned by the account holder, banks would not exist if the bank became the owner of the money deposited, such an arrangement makes no sense. However, banks are within their rights to close your account at any time for any reason, they just have to make sure you get your money back. If you're suggesting that websites should be required to "return your data", that seems reasonable to me.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      Well, banks are required to return it; and they are required to provide an accounting of it; and in practice, they need to give everything to you in such a way that it's easy to go get setup at another bank. If Facebook gives us our contact list as a JPEG, then it's not really facilitative of transfer, whereas giving it to us as TSV or vCard would be.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        I think I might have misunderstood your original argument. If what you meant by "property rights online" is that users should have property rights over their data, on this we agree. I am in favor of laws that would e.g. mandate any website that collects PII to provide tools to manage/export/delete/control the collected data. What I thought you meant was that users would inherent property rights over the website itself, that is what I disagree with.
galbar 6y ago
I think this is why we need more federated social media, based on protocols, just like I can own my email account (by getting a domain, for example) and I can move it accross providers and interoperate with other people on other providers. I would be able to choose the provider that I trust the most (or self-host) and even move to another provider, while still being able to participate in the global conversation. This way we'd also have different fronts (apps, websites, clients, etc.) to this network, each of them editorializing it however they please. I'd own my account, my posts and I'd be able to choose which front I want to use to interact with the network. Users would be responsible for what they post and fronts would be responsible for what they show, if they choose to filter and/or promote content.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  That's something very different...that's just saying, you can be your own provider if you want. That won't actually improve rights for most people, kind of like being your own bank is not a remedy for most people. The important thing is improved rights to what's in the account, and improved rights to damages when it is credibly harmed.
  - galbar 6y ago
    My point is that if you are free to change provider without having to quit access to your existing network (same username/handle and connections), then you are free to backup your data and move it around to different social media providers. At that point you are not at the will of one centralized company. If you feel like your rights are being violated, you can change provider. Following your parallelism with banks: if I have my money in bank A and I don't like how it is operating I am free to change from bank A to bank B.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      Yeah, if it's provider portability you're talking about. I misunderstood your post initially to be a suggestion that people should self-host everything. Greater property rights in our online accounts would be de jure decentralization since the ability to take it all with us -- content, contacts, &c -- would be part of that.
Nasrudith 6y ago
That is a nonsensical and entitled notion of property that stated an entitlement to another's server. Channels, accounts, and online storefronts don't stay online of their own accords. They require hardware, software, and occasional power. If I decide to unplug an old PC that was acting as say a dedicated game server would I be depriving many people of property? Which would make my own ownership of the server a lie? The only way that would be sustainable would be a contract to pay the host. That is basically existing contract law with a self-aggrandizing name attached to it. It contributes literally nothing new conceptually.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  The property interest in one's channel is not actually an entitlement to be on another's server, anymore than a property interest in one's car is a right to put it in a certain parking garage. The property interest kicks in when the car is parked in a garage and then damaged, lost, sold, &c.

julienb_sea 6y ago

But they don't belong to users. At best users are leasing the space (for free). There are basic agreements around behavior which are conditional for use, and generally reasonable. The problem is the grey area, and people's political views and biases strongly affect what they think is or is not following the rules. That makes the rules extremely hard to enforce in a manner that keeps people satisfied.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
You could say the same thing about bank accounts! People are just leasing the space for free (&c) but the law recognizes an ownership interest in the material in the account, a right to the returns, &c. Banks do have certain rights with regards to the account, as well -- that's how they make any money at all -- but it's much more granular than the situation we presently have with online accounts.
- wmf 6y ago
  I don't know if that's a good analogy. Banks can also shut down your account at will; they have to give you your money but they don't have to continue providing any services. And banking is private but social media is public. It's reasonable that if a social network closes your account they should give you a backup, but forcing social networks to continue hosting offensive material in public because the user "owns" their account sounds untenable, especially since the user doesn't pay.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    No one is arguing that they should be forced to continue to host offensive material. What we're talking about, is giving people standing to take Facebook to court if their account is suspended for posting something that is true and substantive. There are many examples of this in the recent past, but perhaps the most surprising is those Facebook accounts who posted material indicating that Kamala Harris's record on gun rights in California is not encouraging for gun owners (not difficult material to fact check -- she activated the handgun roster) and found themselves suspended because, according to Facebook fact checkers, "Kamala Harris is pro 2nd Amendment". More controversially, it is now being argued that Twitter's recent suspension of the New York Post was entirely baseless: that there was no reason for the social network to conclude that the news agency was reporting the products of disinformation. The way property rights usually work, you aren't able to force people to treat you fairly in a particular situation, but you can take them to court over it and be made whole. The system certainly functions as an aggregate encouragement to treat other people fairly but only in rare situations are you going to see people forced to perform in a particular way. People would still lose their accounts but expanded rights would give them a way to pursue a remedy.

wmf 6y ago

Get yourself an ASN, an IP prefix, and a domain name.

krapp 6y ago

> If channels, accounts, online storefronts, followings and content were recognized as belonging to users, it would substantially change the dynamics around deplatforming, as well as anti-competitive activity by the majors. Why should these belong to the users when the software hosting them, the servers running the software, and the infrastructure running the servers are all owned, operated and maintained by a third party? That's like saying I should own my table at a restaurant simply because when I walk in and sit down, they serve food to me there. Using a service has never entitled you to an ownership share of the establishment.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
It's like saying you own the "business" behind the restaurant -- brand and so forth -- even if you're renting the space. It's kind of like how you own the assets in your bank account and have a right to the returns on them even though the building, the accounting software, the IP and internal best practices supporting it are all (usually) owned by the bank. We need to recognize the property interest of users in what they built -- in their content, following, online store, &c -- as a separate matter from the from the platform's ownership of its infrastructure, best practices and organization.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Bank accounts already have contracts and terms regulated for the actual legal obligations. We "need" nothing else for shouts to the void as nobody gives enough of a shit to set up and use more guaranteed terms and any arguments are just as timely, sane, and useful as saying we need to make blood oaths legally binding and have notaries for them. No we don't we really don't.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    The terms we "already" have for bank accounts are due to a long interplay between consumers, banks, and regulators.
- krapp 6y ago

root_axis 6y ago

Before we start socializing the property rights of websites, can we do housing and medical infrastructure first? Especially all the companies with exclusive rights to life saving drugs.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
It's not socialization...if anything, it's greater privatization of property. Think about the situation that obtains with a bank account: the law recognizes that the account holder owns the content of the account, without them having to own the bank or even a share of the bank.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > The law recognizes that the account holder owns the content of the account Yes, because the money being deposited is already owned by the account holder, banks would not exist if the bank became the owner of the money deposited, such an arrangement makes no sense. However, banks are within their rights to close your account at any time for any reason, they just have to make sure you get your money back. If you're suggesting that websites should be required to "return your data", that seems reasonable to me.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Well, banks are required to return it; and they are required to provide an accounting of it; and in practice, they need to give everything to you in such a way that it's easy to go get setup at another bank. If Facebook gives us our contact list as a JPEG, then it's not really facilitative of transfer, whereas giving it to us as TSV or vCard would be.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      I think I might have misunderstood your original argument. If what you meant by "property rights online" is that users should have property rights over their data, on this we agree. I am in favor of laws that would e.g. mandate any website that collects PII to provide tools to manage/export/delete/control the collected data. What I thought you meant was that users would inherent property rights over the website itself, that is what I disagree with.

galbar 6y ago

I think this is why we need more federated social media, based on protocols, just like I can own my email account (by getting a domain, for example) and I can move it accross providers and interoperate with other people on other providers. I would be able to choose the provider that I trust the most (or self-host) and even move to another provider, while still being able to participate in the global conversation. This way we'd also have different fronts (apps, websites, clients, etc.) to this network, each of them editorializing it however they please. I'd own my account, my posts and I'd be able to choose which front I want to use to interact with the network. Users would be responsible for what they post and fronts would be responsible for what they show, if they choose to filter and/or promote content.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
That's something very different...that's just saying, you can be your own provider if you want. That won't actually improve rights for most people, kind of like being your own bank is not a remedy for most people. The important thing is improved rights to what's in the account, and improved rights to damages when it is credibly harmed.
- galbar 6y ago
  My point is that if you are free to change provider without having to quit access to your existing network (same username/handle and connections), then you are free to backup your data and move it around to different social media providers. At that point you are not at the will of one centralized company. If you feel like your rights are being violated, you can change provider. Following your parallelism with banks: if I have my money in bank A and I don't like how it is operating I am free to change from bank A to bank B.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    Yeah, if it's provider portability you're talking about. I misunderstood your post initially to be a suggestion that people should self-host everything. Greater property rights in our online accounts would be de jure decentralization since the ability to take it all with us -- content, contacts, &c -- would be part of that.

Nasrudith 6y ago

That is a nonsensical and entitled notion of property that stated an entitlement to another's server. Channels, accounts, and online storefronts don't stay online of their own accords. They require hardware, software, and occasional power. If I decide to unplug an old PC that was acting as say a dedicated game server would I be depriving many people of property? Which would make my own ownership of the server a lie? The only way that would be sustainable would be a contract to pay the host. That is basically existing contract law with a self-aggrandizing name attached to it. It contributes literally nothing new conceptually.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
The property interest in one's channel is not actually an entitlement to be on another's server, anymore than a property interest in one's car is a right to put it in a certain parking garage. The property interest kicks in when the car is parked in a garage and then damaged, lost, sold, &c.