3 ms·

Isn't the free-market answer to this problem for users to move to other social media platforms that moderate in a way they prefer? The problem here is how power

Isn't the free-market answer to this problem for users to move to other social media platforms that moderate in a way they prefer? The problem here is how powerful and walled-off Facebook and Twitter are, making competing difficult if not impossible. Perhaps if we solve that problem, everyone can get what they want. I think saying that, on principle, companies should not moderate content at all is equally absurd as it would allow malware, CP, abusive content, and spam to run rampant. All we're really arguing about here is to what extent do we want these platforms to moderate content. Should they be limited to only removing illegal content? What's the line on "illegal" (no company could afford to consult lawyers for every post they remove)? What about spam, which is not necessarily illegal but disruptive to the service?

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
If I remember correctly, Google put a ton of resources into a Facebook competitor and failed spectacularly. A well funded, immediate millions of users, and an unrivaled ad network… fell on its face (for reasons of course, but none nullify the above facts). Now, please make the case for any startup to compete with Google’s resources. If the only case you can make is time, there is a problem with this monopolistic system.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  Absolutely there is a problem. That was my point. If we fix the monopolization of these industries, we solve the moderation issue as well via the free market. Obviously solving the kind of monopolies created by social networks is hard. The best proposals I've heard is forcing them to open up their social graphs/APIs to competitors, but that's not without its own issues (e.g. bad actors siphoning off user data, like Cambridge Analytica).
- smcl 5y ago
  You're effectively saying that Google failed, therefore nobody can succeed. This suggests that Google threw all its might and resources behind Google+ and still came up short. I don't think that's true, but even if they did, throwing sufficient resources at the problem was not the issue, the problem seemed to be poorly understood within Google. They seemed to be building "Facebook but Google-branded, but also somehow not Facebook" and then when it was struggling early on instead of trying to fix it, they just went "Ok all Google users have a Google+ now" and acted like they were blowing up. There is a very interesting counterexample. A company that Facebook saw as enough of a threat that they bit the bullet and spent what was at the time an eyewatering amount of money on a company with a product that was built by a tiny team - Instagram. We can't ever know what would have become of Instagram had it not been acquired, maybe it would just be the aspirational selfies-and-travel-pics app or maybe it would grow and become something altogether different. But it is certainly clear to me that the failure of Google+ does not mean someone can't build a company that could grow to rival Facebook. They may seem dominant in social media now, but companies which have been completely dominant in their field have been known to totally collapse - remember Nokia?
johannes1234321 5y ago
> Isn't the free-market answer to this problem for users to move to other social media platforms that moderate in a way they prefer? It's not that easy. You want to be where your audience is. People are on Twitter since there is a huge (potential) audience. Thus if the moderation only affects a small group and majority doesn't even notice others being moderated it is a tough game.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

If I remember correctly, Google put a ton of resources into a Facebook competitor and failed spectacularly. A well funded, immediate millions of users, and an unrivaled ad network… fell on its face (for reasons of course, but none nullify the above facts). Now, please make the case for any startup to compete with Google’s resources. If the only case you can make is time, there is a problem with this monopolistic system.

AlexandrB 5y ago
Absolutely there is a problem. That was my point. If we fix the monopolization of these industries, we solve the moderation issue as well via the free market. Obviously solving the kind of monopolies created by social networks is hard. The best proposals I've heard is forcing them to open up their social graphs/APIs to competitors, but that's not without its own issues (e.g. bad actors siphoning off user data, like Cambridge Analytica).
smcl 5y ago
You're effectively saying that Google failed, therefore nobody can succeed. This suggests that Google threw all its might and resources behind Google+ and still came up short. I don't think that's true, but even if they did, throwing sufficient resources at the problem was not the issue, the problem seemed to be poorly understood within Google. They seemed to be building "Facebook but Google-branded, but also somehow not Facebook" and then when it was struggling early on instead of trying to fix it, they just went "Ok all Google users have a Google+ now" and acted like they were blowing up. There is a very interesting counterexample. A company that Facebook saw as enough of a threat that they bit the bullet and spent what was at the time an eyewatering amount of money on a company with a product that was built by a tiny team - Instagram. We can't ever know what would have become of Instagram had it not been acquired, maybe it would just be the aspirational selfies-and-travel-pics app or maybe it would grow and become something altogether different. But it is certainly clear to me that the failure of Google+ does not mean someone can't build a company that could grow to rival Facebook. They may seem dominant in social media now, but companies which have been completely dominant in their field have been known to totally collapse - remember Nokia?

johannes1234321 5y ago

> Isn't the free-market answer to this problem for users to move to other social media platforms that moderate in a way they prefer? It's not that easy. You want to be where your audience is. People are on Twitter since there is a huge (potential) audience. Thus if the moderation only affects a small group and majority doesn't even notice others being moderated it is a tough game.