5 ms·

I was a bit overwhelmed by your Wall of Text (tm) at first, but I decided to check your comment history and figured, yeah okay let me dig in, and I think you ma

by pfraze 5y ago

I was a bit overwhelmed by your Wall of Text (tm) at first, but I decided to check your comment history and figured, yeah okay let me dig in, and I think you made some interesting points. Here are my thoughts... > Note the Machiavellian manner in which it is framed i.e. this is a 'Facebook' problem, when in reality, it's not Zuck out there making the rules so much as it's people on FB having a voice. I agree that Facebook has become somewhat of a proxy topic for the Internet. It's also probably accurate that some people in power are concerned about an open press -- not FB's power specifically -- and are using the FB situation to attack the core ideas of the Internet. Somewhere deep inside of this situation however is a much more complex conversation about how the Internet should work, because if Facebook is really the best model for information flow online then we really do have a problem. As you say, there should be actually a concern that idiots in their basement making things up have more influence than researchers. This is where I get a little uncomfortable with the framing that this situation is only "Facebook versus Traditional Media & the Powerful," because it deframes the conversation that Facebook is a monopoly over the commons which shouldn't exist. Facebook is a very opinionated system, from its focus on connecting everybody as maximally as possible to its algorithm design to its UI design to its privacy invasions. I hope - perhaps naively - that general dissatisfaction with them can lead to new openings in the market as people look for alternatives, and that it happens before any kind of regulatory intervention starts. > Francis was a Political Agent, from day 1. Anybody who understands media knows that Francis' leaks were heavily coordinated, for all the reasons you say. That required backing of some kind; more than she probably could provide herself (though she did apparently have some crypto money?). I don't know what else to do with that information, and I don't really want to get distracted with that part of the debate. The things we talk about end up becoming the thing that matters. This is why I also started my original post with the point about Facebook probably dropping these stories. This gets us into the media war that's being waged between both sides rather than the relevant issues: is FB good for the world as it is right now, and if not then what would make it better? > Moreover, it's a bit hypocritical to be talking about breaking up FB when there are likely more traditional issues of monopoly at Google and Amazon. Those conversations are happening too. FB is just the one getting dogged the hardest right now, and (as I said) probably because they're the least popular of those companies.

jollybean 5y ago
Those are good points, however, I think that putting it in the context of 'values of the internet' is a bit too academic. I don't think this is rhetorical or intellectual issue. Some groups are losing power and they are scrambling, that's most of the story. FB doesn't really have a monopoly, I think Zuck just made it easy for people to have their own 'pages' on the net, and the resulting unmitigated chaos is the result of it, and the elites don't like that. I failed to mention as well - the government I believe is using this to push for more regulation and control. For better or for worse. I don't see this as a hugely principled fight. I mean - in some forums it's framed that way, but not in the corridors of power. If it were, I think the discussions would be more nuanced. For all of the yelling and hype, what I do not see are attempts to take an objective assessment of the situation, while offering a bunch of solutions with apparent tradeoffs etc.. This is a very tricky issue.
- pfraze 5y ago
  It is a tricky issue, and you might be right. It's also very hard to parse when a conversation goes this mainstream what the true essence of it is. I mean, basically all topics lose nuance when they go this mainstream. I think we (mostly) agree on the grievances I listed? But I think your point is that the fight has - at least - evolved into a power battle that's beyond what I'm talking about, and I can't disagree with that.

by pfraze 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

Those are good points, however, I think that putting it in the context of 'values of the internet' is a bit too academic. I don't think this is rhetorical or intellectual issue. Some groups are losing power and they are scrambling, that's most of the story. FB doesn't really have a monopoly, I think Zuck just made it easy for people to have their own 'pages' on the net, and the resulting unmitigated chaos is the result of it, and the elites don't like that. I failed to mention as well - the government I believe is using this to push for more regulation and control. For better or for worse. I don't see this as a hugely principled fight. I mean - in some forums it's framed that way, but not in the corridors of power. If it were, I think the discussions would be more nuanced. For all of the yelling and hype, what I do not see are attempts to take an objective assessment of the situation, while offering a bunch of solutions with apparent tradeoffs etc.. This is a very tricky issue.

pfraze 5y ago
It is a tricky issue, and you might be right. It's also very hard to parse when a conversation goes this mainstream what the true essence of it is. I mean, basically all topics lose nuance when they go this mainstream. I think we (mostly) agree on the grievances I listed? But I think your point is that the fight has - at least - evolved into a power battle that's beyond what I'm talking about, and I can't disagree with that.