4 ms·

Social media companies should be publicly owned and regulated, paid via taxes, not for profit, with strict regulations for privacy and security. A partially fed

Social media companies should be publicly owned and regulated, paid via taxes, not for profit, with strict regulations for privacy and security. A partially federated design would help to further realize the original intention of the internet. This seems unlikely to occur anytime soon, however, not even considering the bureaucratic complications with ensuring a fair design and implementation, in full consideration of the needs of NatSec and LE relative to civil liberties. A good start might be to consider the types of governing bodies necessary to ensure that every interest group is satisfied (if such a thing is even possible). The current gross monopolies on search/social/ecommerce are anththetical to American values. These monopolies yield gross concentrations of power and wealth for parties not properly accountable to the public. This is fundamentally wrong and a danger to the fabric of our democracy.

refurb 6y ago
I'm not sure much would change if it were publicly owned. You'd still have political interference from whoever is in office. The same arguments over what's "disinformation", with the ruling party having a clear bias ("oh that negative story about me? disinformation"). And as well, no doubt the intelligence agencies will have a field day getting access to a public social media platform.
- mandragon 6y ago
  All great points, which is why the architecture of a governing body that aims to satisfy the interests of end users while addressing your other concerns is foundational. The governing body wouldn't be fully under the authority of the three branches of government. Rather, a hybrid model that gives the people direct interest in social media governance would allow for desirable mutual outcomes. The main goal is to remove the capitalist and private interests, while leveraging the good parts of our elected government, and also to directly integrate voices of the people. The entire exercise is thus to develop such a governance specifically for social media. We could even create a "digital constitution" to re-think our democratic experiment in the age of social media.

refurb 6y ago

I'm not sure much would change if it were publicly owned. You'd still have political interference from whoever is in office. The same arguments over what's "disinformation", with the ruling party having a clear bias ("oh that negative story about me? disinformation"). And as well, no doubt the intelligence agencies will have a field day getting access to a public social media platform.

mandragon 6y ago
All great points, which is why the architecture of a governing body that aims to satisfy the interests of end users while addressing your other concerns is foundational. The governing body wouldn't be fully under the authority of the three branches of government. Rather, a hybrid model that gives the people direct interest in social media governance would allow for desirable mutual outcomes. The main goal is to remove the capitalist and private interests, while leveraging the good parts of our elected government, and also to directly integrate voices of the people. The entire exercise is thus to develop such a governance specifically for social media. We could even create a "digital constitution" to re-think our democratic experiment in the age of social media.