6 ms·

I'm tired of this BS argument. When you reach full monopoly on a market you have to be regulated. FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. This i

I'm tired of this BS argument. When you reach full monopoly on a market you have to be regulated. FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. This is the role of governments.

KaiserPro 6y ago
> FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. This is the role of governments. I don't mean to be a pedant, but its literally as old as time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst All TV stations have an editorial guide, this defines what can and can't be said. Sure you can push at the boundaries, but stray to far and you'll be pulled off air. All newspapers have editorial standards as well. This is why there was such an explosion in 'zine culture in the late 80s early 90s. censorship by private individuals has always been there, we forget that in the last 10 years we've been able to literally say and do anything we want on the internet with little to no repercussions.
- blackbrokkoli 6y ago
  Yes, and we determined TV to be archaic, rigid and top-down. We tried to build something better. Now we are trying to not become as shitty. That is literally the point.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  All TV, all newspapers, OK but where are all the Facebooks? That's the difference.
krapp 6y ago
Speaking of tired BS arguments... >When you reach full monopoly on a market you have to be regulated. Facebook doesn't have anything like "full monopoly" on any market. They don't have a monopoly on the internet, they don't have a monopoly on social media. They don't have a monopoly on human communication. They're not even the most popular social media platform among some demographics. >FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. They're not dictating what can be said publicly, they're dictating what can be said on their platform which, yes, they have the right to do.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I agree. But if FB is going to do something stupid I would like to see them engage in their stupidity without playing favorites.
drivingmenuts 6y ago
They do have the right to dictate what can be said publicly, on their platforms. They can’t dictate who listens to you, but speaking and listening are not the same thing. The old analogy of “you are welcome in my living room until I decide you are not” applies here. If you are finding it difficult to reach people, the onus is on you to find a way to reach an audience, not on them to provide it for you.
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago
  That adage was from a time before a single company's "living room" could swallow the town square and part of the postal service in nearly every town across dozens of countries.
  - krapp 6y ago
    It doesn't matter. Personal liberty, freedom of speech (which implies freedom from compelled speech) and freedom of association (and even, arguably, property rights) are scale invariant. And everyone seems to have forgotten that those rights apply to the owners of sites and platforms as well.

I'm tired of this BS argument. When you reach full monopoly on a market you have to be regulated. FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. This is the role of governments.

KaiserPro 6y ago

> FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. This is the role of governments. I don't mean to be a pedant, but its literally as old as time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst All TV stations have an editorial guide, this defines what can and can't be said. Sure you can push at the boundaries, but stray to far and you'll be pulled off air. All newspapers have editorial standards as well. This is why there was such an explosion in 'zine culture in the late 80s early 90s. censorship by private individuals has always been there, we forget that in the last 10 years we've been able to literally say and do anything we want on the internet with little to no repercussions.

blackbrokkoli 6y ago
Yes, and we determined TV to be archaic, rigid and top-down. We tried to build something better. Now we are trying to not become as shitty. That is literally the point.
jmnicolas 6y ago
All TV, all newspapers, OK but where are all the Facebooks? That's the difference.

krapp 6y ago

Speaking of tired BS arguments... >When you reach full monopoly on a market you have to be regulated. Facebook doesn't have anything like "full monopoly" on any market. They don't have a monopoly on the internet, they don't have a monopoly on social media. They don't have a monopoly on human communication. They're not even the most popular social media platform among some demographics. >FB has no right to dictate what can be said publicly. They're not dictating what can be said publicly, they're dictating what can be said on their platform which, yes, they have the right to do.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

I agree. But if FB is going to do something stupid I would like to see them engage in their stupidity without playing favorites.

drivingmenuts 6y ago

They do have the right to dictate what can be said publicly, on their platforms. They can’t dictate who listens to you, but speaking and listening are not the same thing. The old analogy of “you are welcome in my living room until I decide you are not” applies here. If you are finding it difficult to reach people, the onus is on you to find a way to reach an audience, not on them to provide it for you.

AlchemistCamp 6y ago
That adage was from a time before a single company's "living room" could swallow the town square and part of the postal service in nearly every town across dozens of countries.
- krapp 6y ago
  It doesn't matter. Personal liberty, freedom of speech (which implies freedom from compelled speech) and freedom of association (and even, arguably, property rights) are scale invariant. And everyone seems to have forgotten that those rights apply to the owners of sites and platforms as well.