3 ms·

The problem is that network effects create monopolies. Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. I'm not an American, and I still don't know if

The problem is that network effects create monopolies. Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. I'm not an American, and I still don't know if there was cheating or not, and actually I don't understand whether there is enough data on it to decide, though usually the bigger problem is when a president stays in the president seat forever.

ethbr0 6y ago
> Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. Absolutely. Many people want to talk in the public (or at least town) square, which trends strongly towards a few providers (where everybody is), which establishes de facto global free speech limits via those provider's policies. And "moving to another service" isn't a feasible redress. Do we want to live in a world where conservatives only read ConservaPedia, and liberals read LibPedia? Or one where they're exposed to each other's ideas and share some facts? >> the first amendment only applies to the government for a reason. [...] The number of people you can reach by shouting in a town square isn't very high, that's why the government can allow any kind of crank to do it. If you can reach millions...bad things would happen. I'll assume that's the reason you were referring to? If so, we disagree on the intent of the First Amendment. I don't think it's about audience reach, so much as relative power: government has historically had controls not available to private companies. Yet in modern times, Facebook / Twitter / Youtube have as much or more control over their platforms, which are as bigger or bigger than the largest First Amendment-covered venue. So while Facebook or Google can't send the FBI to your door, they can effectively disappear your idea / product from their ecosystems, and there are very few checks on that power, particularly when ranking algorithms are allowed to be shielded from public scrutiny.

ethbr0 6y ago

> Social network effects create monopolies on free speech. Absolutely. Many people want to talk in the public (or at least town) square, which trends strongly towards a few providers (where everybody is), which establishes de facto global free speech limits via those provider's policies. And "moving to another service" isn't a feasible redress. Do we want to live in a world where conservatives only read ConservaPedia, and liberals read LibPedia? Or one where they're exposed to each other's ideas and share some facts? >> the first amendment only applies to the government for a reason. [...] The number of people you can reach by shouting in a town square isn't very high, that's why the government can allow any kind of crank to do it. If you can reach millions...bad things would happen. I'll assume that's the reason you were referring to? If so, we disagree on the intent of the First Amendment. I don't think it's about audience reach, so much as relative power: government has historically had controls not available to private companies. Yet in modern times, Facebook / Twitter / Youtube have as much or more control over their platforms, which are as bigger or bigger than the largest First Amendment-covered venue. So while Facebook or Google can't send the FBI to your door, they can effectively disappear your idea / product from their ecosystems, and there are very few checks on that power, particularly when ranking algorithms are allowed to be shielded from public scrutiny.