3 ms·
If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Instead th
by apple_innocent 6y ago
If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with.
Instead these enourmous websites are filling what is now an obvious void in public services for communication.
Perhaps I should not have used the term "common carrier" as that term has very specific meaning, and only in certain jurisdictions. What I mean is common carrier-like treatment by the public. People talk about these websites as if they are public services. Messenger apps are treated like they are interchangeable with telephone service.
Practically speaking (i.e., how they are being used in practice), maybe, but beyond that I refuse to see them that way. These are not anywhere close to public services, IMO.
Even the trend of websites that we would otherwise see as "public websites" containing "public information" that urge visitors to create "accounts" or "profiles" and "log in" is a disturbing evolution to me, blurring the line between public and private websites. Traditionally, a website that is protected by a password is not "open to the public". If "accounts" are required then disabling the account can disable "public access". Accounts can be disabled for any reason.
Of course, that trend is probably driven by the commercialisation of the web as an advertiser's wet dream.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago> If U.S. government provided a platform, then these "free speech" claims might have a basis in law. IMO, the issues would be easier to grapple with. Having the government provide the platform would create a huge burden on one entity to moderate content. Any mistake would be magnified 1000x what they are now. It would end free speech as we know it and would be very expensive. Instead we encourage businesses to moderate their own content and compete for a userbase. That allows platforms to evolve on their own dime with incremental changes that satisfy their respective userbases.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- catlifeonmars 6y agoThat would work if the interests of social media platforms are aligned with the interests of its users, but that is not the case. Rather, social media platform interests are aligned with their monetization vectors. This is a classic agent problem.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoThe point here is to expand the number of social media sites from the handful we have to several more rather than collapsing them into a single state-owned entity. And, we can't just snap our fingers to make that happen. True competition comes from separately owned, competing services.
- apple_innocent 6y agoA superior outcome would be OTT peer-to-peer communication, with small groups of peers forming their own mini-networks potentially linking with others if there is mutual interest. The massive groups that form via today's internet do not reflect human nature in the real world. People usually are only part of small groups, family, friends, colleagues, teammates, etc. People usually keep the groups isolated from one another, for the most part. The internet has been hijacked to become primarily a broadcast medium that serves the interests of advertisers, marketers, promoters, etc., those who deal in hype, and a relatively small number of companies (middlemen) that enable them. The hijackers all want internet users to join large groups that can be targeted through a central point with commercial/political mesaging.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoMaybe. Make it happen and let's see but I wouldn't put money on that. Everyone can't hold the ledger like btc It's not a conspiracy that a handful of platforms dominate it's simply flawed regulation targeting the wrong incentives.