3 ms·

> Just because something is popular doesn't mean people should be entitled to it. We have generally acknowledged that things that are important to everyone and

> Just because something is popular doesn't mean people should be entitled to it. We have generally acknowledged that things that are important to everyone and are monopolized need to be regulated. Social media is practically the only effective way to participate in the global community. The same is true, although with decreasing necessity, in more localized communities. Facebook and Twitter have massively altered the way that people engage with other people, businesses, even the government. They took public discourse and monetized it. That's fine, but they now have to deal with the implications of being the keepers of public discourse, and I think a reasonable stipulation for allowing them to monetize that is that they cannot bar someone from participating without a very good justification that isn't "lol our ToS allows us to cut you off whenever we want, and take your first born child". > speaking economically when these large platforms boot people off it actually increases competition and decreases their dominance because it creates a market opportunity for competitors, exactly like what happened with Parler. Suddenly, nobody seems to care that a conservative competitor to AWS is getting a huge account, shouldn't that be pereceived as a good thing? Sure, and what happened to them? It's a little ironic to argue that booting people off of their platform increases competition and then mention their new competitor that was immediately wiped off the face of the internet. I think Parler attracted a lot of extremists. That's partially their own fault with their poor moderation, but it's also a reflection that Twitter has so dominated the marketplace that your only customers as a new social media site are going to be nutjobs. It has strong anti-competitive effects. The community is a huge part of a social media site. Crazy users poison the community, ensuring that the brand is tainted and not a threat to Twitter. > Why are the people who get banned so insistent on using services they claim are inherently unfair to them? Why not support companies that share your values? Because you'd be better off writing it on bathroom stalls. Because there is no meaningful competitor. Even Parler was tiny by social media standards, and it's probably dead now. Because your friends and family want to use Twitter, and probably won't switch, so you have to use Twitter and Facebook. Because Facebook and Twitter have spent so long maximizing engagement that people barely bother looking for other sources of news and information. I'm not a huge fan of Parler or the way it was run. It does seem damning that the only app that threatened to take some of Twitter's market share was immediately scrubbed off the internet. I don't think ISIS material gets completely wiped off the face of the internet that fast.

root_axis 6y ago
> We have generally acknowledged that things that are important to everyone and are monopolized need to be regulated. Social media is not important, it's an entertainment triviality on par with online gaming. Further, big tech does not monopolize online communication by any definition of the word, twitter and facebook are one of many thousands of ways to communicate online, and most internet users use a variety of platforms as using one does not preclude the ability to use another. Additionally, I'm not saying these companies shouldn't be regulated, check my reply in the sibling thread, what I'm opposed to is the violation of property and first amendment rights by forcing these companies to pay for hosting content they disagree with. >Social media is practically the only effective way to participate in the global community Totally false. The "global community" such that it exists on the internet is spread across many hundreds of thousands of applications, sites, and communities. > they now have to deal with the implications of being the keepers of public discourse, No, your reasoning here is completely backwards. The fraction of people who willingly choose to participate in public discourse on these sites have to deal with the implications of choosing to use such sites. There are many alternative options available. > It's a little ironic to argue that booting people off of their platform increases competition and then mention their new competitor that was immediately wiped off the face of the internet. No. Parler moved to a new hosting platform called Epik the same one that hosts Gab and others, this is a business opportunity for Epik created by the fact that AWS did not want to do business with Parler, this reduces AWS's dominance in the market. > it's also a reflection that Twitter has so dominated the marketplace that your only customers as a new social media site are going to be nutjobs. Not true. The reason that Parler attracts extremists is because it was designed to attract them. There are many other platforms that don't have this issue > The community is a huge part of a social media site Social media sites do not own the community, they can visit as few or as many different social media sites as they want and its trivial for them to do so. > Because there is no meaningful competitor. Totally false. Discord, tiktok, mastadon, pinterest, twitch, vimeo, tumblr, irc, medium, soundcloud, wordpress, blogger ete and that's just off the top of my head. > Because your friends and family want to use Twitter, and probably won't switch, so you have to use Twitter and Facebook. That doesn't matter. If your friends use a platform that you want to use then follow the rules of the platform and you'll have no problem. A lot of my friends communicate over Steam chat, that doesn't mean Valve owes me anything - it's an entertainment triviality. > Because Facebook and Twitter have spent so long maximizing engagement that people barely bother looking for other sources of news and information. This is false, but even if it were true, anyone who gets their information exclusively from social media is to blame for their own media consumption habits.

root_axis 6y ago

> We have generally acknowledged that things that are important to everyone and are monopolized need to be regulated. Social media is not important, it's an entertainment triviality on par with online gaming. Further, big tech does not monopolize online communication by any definition of the word, twitter and facebook are one of many thousands of ways to communicate online, and most internet users use a variety of platforms as using one does not preclude the ability to use another. Additionally, I'm not saying these companies shouldn't be regulated, check my reply in the sibling thread, what I'm opposed to is the violation of property and first amendment rights by forcing these companies to pay for hosting content they disagree with. >Social media is practically the only effective way to participate in the global community Totally false. The "global community" such that it exists on the internet is spread across many hundreds of thousands of applications, sites, and communities. > they now have to deal with the implications of being the keepers of public discourse, No, your reasoning here is completely backwards. The fraction of people who willingly choose to participate in public discourse on these sites have to deal with the implications of choosing to use such sites. There are many alternative options available. > It's a little ironic to argue that booting people off of their platform increases competition and then mention their new competitor that was immediately wiped off the face of the internet. No. Parler moved to a new hosting platform called Epik the same one that hosts Gab and others, this is a business opportunity for Epik created by the fact that AWS did not want to do business with Parler, this reduces AWS's dominance in the market. > it's also a reflection that Twitter has so dominated the marketplace that your only customers as a new social media site are going to be nutjobs. Not true. The reason that Parler attracts extremists is because it was designed to attract them. There are many other platforms that don't have this issue > The community is a huge part of a social media site Social media sites do not own the community, they can visit as few or as many different social media sites as they want and its trivial for them to do so. > Because there is no meaningful competitor. Totally false. Discord, tiktok, mastadon, pinterest, twitch, vimeo, tumblr, irc, medium, soundcloud, wordpress, blogger ete and that's just off the top of my head. > Because your friends and family want to use Twitter, and probably won't switch, so you have to use Twitter and Facebook. That doesn't matter. If your friends use a platform that you want to use then follow the rules of the platform and you'll have no problem. A lot of my friends communicate over Steam chat, that doesn't mean Valve owes me anything - it's an entertainment triviality. > Because Facebook and Twitter have spent so long maximizing engagement that people barely bother looking for other sources of news and information. This is false, but even if it were true, anyone who gets their information exclusively from social media is to blame for their own media consumption habits.