3 ms·
I agree that there is no good analogy for what Facebook is, because it is different. But I think what people really mean when they say this is that Facebook has
by rvense 5y ago
I agree that there is no good analogy for what Facebook is, because it is different. But I think what people really mean when they say this is that Facebook has largely supplanted those things. This might not be true where you are, or for your specific circle, but it is the case in many places.
Facebook penetration in my country is so complete, I would wager there is absolutely no way to, say, successfully run for public office without at least maintaining an active Facebook page. This is why I say that Facebook must be destroyed. It is not acceptable that some company half the world away, based on American morals and American interests, gets to decide who can and cannot realistically get elected here.
- aflkunusu 5y agowhat else do you think needs to be destroyed/outlawed?
- rvense 5y agoPassive-aggressive, drive-by internet comments from throw-away accounts.
- fstrthnscnd 5y agoJust "Passive-aggressive, drive-by internet comments" would suffice.
- visarga 5y agoAnd what will stop the next platform from doing even worse? It's not solving the problem, just passing it forward.
- rvense 5y agoThere shouldn't be one platform. Openness and interoperability are key.
- visarga 5y agoI'm afraid this will be band for privacy - too many hands in the jar.
- smsm42 5y agoNetwork effects say it would be at least an oligopoly, just as it is now. Unless the whole system would be rebuilt to explicitly disallow this and counter such effects, but who would build such a system and why would they invest in it, knowing in advance they wouldn't profit from it or even able to control it? It would surely face a huge pressure from all the "we can't allow bad people to speak" crowd, and this crowd owns the government, the academia, the banks and the internet infrastructure now. So what exactly the plan for it to happen?