4 ms·

I don't understand how anyone can see one of the tech monopolies as just another business from which one could simply move to another platform [0]. These places

I don't understand how anyone can see one of the tech monopolies as just another business from which one could simply move to another platform [0]. These places are de facto public commons at this point and are a significant factor in reaching a broad audience. Removal from the platforms does amount to censorship if the reason is a mere political disagreement. [0] c.f. the fate of Parler which was assassinated overnight by a collaboration of the tech monopolies, but was celebrated by the public because of the bad reputation it accumulated.

TameAntelope 6y ago
What monopoly, exactly, does Facebook actually have here? Are you suggesting they control an overwhelming share of... online marketplaces?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cccc4all 6y ago
  Facebook owns mobile advertising space. Their ad targeting data is part of duopoly with google, which owns search targeting data. Facebook and google both needs to be broken up with anti-trust rules.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    How is that relevant here, though? Facebook's marketplace is hardly WikiLeaks' only viable option to sell its merchandise, and in fact is probably not even the wisest choice. Am I now unable to purchase WikiLeaks merchandise?
dleslie 6y ago
They are not de facto public commons, they are privately controlled advertisement channels. It is _very dangerous_ to consider them as anything other than an effective means by which to drive advertisement sales.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  It is dangerous, but the people have adopted them as the commons. Especially as it's now illegal to gather in most places, this company shapes the perception of reality for most citizens online.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I do agree with you. That is the financial basis of their existence and will drive their decisions, however in practice the public does use them as a defacto public forum. These two ideas coexist and are also irreconcilable. Personally, I think nationalizing FB, removing their profit motive, and clearly placing them under 1A protections is a good idea. If you're worried about the government shutting down dissenters, well guess what this thread is about? The government and FB are only able to achieve this due to the private property protections FB has and rhetorical spin that provides.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    ... You'd give control of part of the most invasive and pervasive surveillance apparatus' in history into the hands of the American Government? Between Facebook and Google there's no effective means escaping intrusive surveillance. I'd rather see Facebook and Google dismantled, not nationalized.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Until we can get the global surveillance apparatus dismantled, the size of the company doesn't matter. Small companies are easily bullied, large companies gain favors from cooperating and are also bullied via the threat of anti-trust. I don't think breaking them up solves anything. EDIT: A better but even more unlikely idea than nationalization would be internationalization, i.e. placing global companies under the control of international committees. I'm not holding my breath at this point though and the global dominance of the US means that unless Russia, Iran, and China are given prominent positions of control it's essentially meaningless.
      - 6y ago
justapassenger 6y ago
HN: “No one is using Facebook, and no one needs it for anything” Also HN: “Facebook is essential and any limits they put on anything is a censorship”
- detaro 6y ago
  It's almost as if HN were a community made from people with different perspectives and opinions.

TameAntelope 6y ago

What monopoly, exactly, does Facebook actually have here? Are you suggesting they control an overwhelming share of... online marketplaces?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cccc4all 6y ago
Facebook owns mobile advertising space. Their ad targeting data is part of duopoly with google, which owns search targeting data. Facebook and google both needs to be broken up with anti-trust rules.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  How is that relevant here, though? Facebook's marketplace is hardly WikiLeaks' only viable option to sell its merchandise, and in fact is probably not even the wisest choice. Am I now unable to purchase WikiLeaks merchandise?

dleslie 6y ago

They are not de facto public commons, they are privately controlled advertisement channels. It is _very dangerous_ to consider them as anything other than an effective means by which to drive advertisement sales.

throwaway3699 6y ago
It is dangerous, but the people have adopted them as the commons. Especially as it's now illegal to gather in most places, this company shapes the perception of reality for most citizens online.
tehjoker 6y ago
I do agree with you. That is the financial basis of their existence and will drive their decisions, however in practice the public does use them as a defacto public forum. These two ideas coexist and are also irreconcilable. Personally, I think nationalizing FB, removing their profit motive, and clearly placing them under 1A protections is a good idea. If you're worried about the government shutting down dissenters, well guess what this thread is about? The government and FB are only able to achieve this due to the private property protections FB has and rhetorical spin that provides.
- dleslie 6y ago
  ... You'd give control of part of the most invasive and pervasive surveillance apparatus' in history into the hands of the American Government? Between Facebook and Google there's no effective means escaping intrusive surveillance. I'd rather see Facebook and Google dismantled, not nationalized.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Until we can get the global surveillance apparatus dismantled, the size of the company doesn't matter. Small companies are easily bullied, large companies gain favors from cooperating and are also bullied via the threat of anti-trust. I don't think breaking them up solves anything. EDIT: A better but even more unlikely idea than nationalization would be internationalization, i.e. placing global companies under the control of international committees. I'm not holding my breath at this point though and the global dominance of the US means that unless Russia, Iran, and China are given prominent positions of control it's essentially meaningless.
    - 6y ago

justapassenger 6y ago

HN: “No one is using Facebook, and no one needs it for anything” Also HN: “Facebook is essential and any limits they put on anything is a censorship”

detaro 6y ago
It's almost as if HN were a community made from people with different perspectives and opinions.