5 ms·

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 ef

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.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      Break them up and regulate the collection and sharing of personal information. Invalidate the freemium model by finding ways to make it more expensive to retain personal data.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Yet another idea is to force them to provide freely accessible API and possibility to extract all data in a free format.
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        This helps somewhat from a competition perspective, but the overhead of downloading and uploading potentially GB or TB of data (messages, photos, videos, etc) is not something users are accustomed to and is a significant barrier. While it can make switching costs somewhat lower (does uploading your posts from another platform always make sense in a new context with new people?), it doesn't do anything about the network effect.
        fsflover 6y ago
        > overhead of downloading and uploading potentially GB or TB of data (messages, photos, videos, etc) is not something users are accustomed to Users don't have to do it. See Nitter (for Twitter) and teddit.net (for Reddit).
  - PicassoCTs 6y ago
    The public is one entity- and will aggregate elsewhere, repeating the process. Humans aggregate, to expect a change in human nature is - a flawed approach.
PicassoCTs 6y ago
The world has voted with there feet that this advertisement sales channel is the public plaza. Its not nice. Its horrible in my opinion, but one cannot argue with the network effect. It just is. A fact. A snapshot on reality. And parent is right. This company is censoring the public plaza. Which it owns. Which is very strange.
barbacoa 6y ago
Supreme court has found that first amendment rights extend to privately owned shopping malls. Don't think in the current atmosphere any court will rule this way, but I understand why people are frustrated that these principles are not applied to digital companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

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.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Break them up and regulate the collection and sharing of personal information. Invalidate the freemium model by finding ways to make it more expensive to retain personal data.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Yet another idea is to force them to provide freely accessible API and possibility to extract all data in a free format.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      This helps somewhat from a competition perspective, but the overhead of downloading and uploading potentially GB or TB of data (messages, photos, videos, etc) is not something users are accustomed to and is a significant barrier. While it can make switching costs somewhat lower (does uploading your posts from another platform always make sense in a new context with new people?), it doesn't do anything about the network effect.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        > overhead of downloading and uploading potentially GB or TB of data (messages, photos, videos, etc) is not something users are accustomed to Users don't have to do it. See Nitter (for Twitter) and teddit.net (for Reddit).
- PicassoCTs 6y ago
  The public is one entity- and will aggregate elsewhere, repeating the process. Humans aggregate, to expect a change in human nature is - a flawed approach.

PicassoCTs 6y ago

The world has voted with there feet that this advertisement sales channel is the public plaza. Its not nice. Its horrible in my opinion, but one cannot argue with the network effect. It just is. A fact. A snapshot on reality. And parent is right. This company is censoring the public plaza. Which it owns. Which is very strange.

barbacoa 6y ago

Supreme court has found that first amendment rights extend to privately owned shopping malls. Don't think in the current atmosphere any court will rule this way, but I understand why people are frustrated that these principles are not applied to digital companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...