6 ms·

How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be d

How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.

spydum 4y ago
Government controlled media and censorship, what could possibly go wrong?
- AzzieElbab 4y ago
  US Government is bound by first amendment, at least in theory
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions? You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.
    - philipov 4y ago
      We could do a Bell Labs and force each nation's Facebook to be spun off into its own entity, with a federated interop protocol to connect them together. I have no delusions that such a thing would ever be allowed to happen, though.
    - kamarg 4y ago
      Pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled that only US citizens, regardless of jurisdiction, are afforded rights laid out in the Constitution.
      - gruez 4y ago
        Not exactly. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/904/aliens https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/904/aliens
  - philipov 4y ago
    Exactly. As long as Facebook is a private corporation, the First Amendment protects their right to arbitrarily censor the speech on their platform however they wish. The way state-controlled media censorship has turned out in other countries is well-known, but having our public spaces controlled by a patsy of the government, who is not subject to the same restrictions as the government even in theory, is not a better outcome.
  - xphilter 4y ago
    Not really. As the owner of a site, the government controls its own speech and is not under any obligation to show “both sides” of an argument. Sure, it can’t only show your comment vs mine, but it can definitely choose which propaganda to spread.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  It is apparently already like that with Facebook, but the government has a layer of plausible deniability. If the FBI can show up and tell Mark Zuckerberg to censor a story, that means Zuckerberg is effectively a state actor.
- qwertyuiop_ 4y ago
  Cuba
dinom 4y ago
Is Facebook the public square all of a sudden? I thought it was a private company.
- naasking 4y ago
  Privately owned public squares exist.
  - dinom 4y ago
    Rest assured that next time I'm arrested for trespassing I won't be calling you for legal advice.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Good because I'm not a lawyer, but what I said is still true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
      - circumscribed 4y ago
        Indeed the principle feels highly relevant. The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
      - dinom 4y ago
        Lol, fair enough. Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization? Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.
        everforward 4y ago
        If you read the ruling, it's not a crazy stretch. "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation." The argument here would be that Facebook is built and operated primarily as a benefit to the public (i.e. they draw income by being a benefit to the public), they are essentially a public function, and are subject to state regulation as such. Facebook would remain privately-held, and could either remain open to the public and subject to constitutional scrutiny, or they could close off and become some kind of a private club like Clubhouse. I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing so, but I think it could be legally supported.
pibechorro 4y ago
Nationalize? What is this North Korea?
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
The same problems with moderation would still exist, and as the previous commenter I think correctly pointed out, the various tribes will all still want the 'other' side's 'misinformation' censored and allow their own 'truths' put out for all to see. Zero moderation is a not workable solution because things would quickly escalate on the site (see what happens to AI chat bots when exposed to an unfiltered internet). They have to do some moderation and the more the do, the madder people get, the less they do the worse the site becomes. They therefore reach this balanced state which has BOTH angry users who feel their side is being censored AND widespread posts with dis/misinformation. It's the shittiest equilibrium.
treebeard901 4y ago
Nationalizing social media is a solution... It would never happen even though many problems with the current system would be solved. Freedom of Speech, 4th amendment rights, and it wouldnt necessarily have to be profitable so it defeats the current ad driven hate machine. Third party doctrine would no longer apply and so on. There is a precedent for it with USPS. When a national postal service was created it was done with the realization of the ability for corruption if a service like that was in private hands. Benjamin Franklin knew this because he often read mail being passed around for intelligence, etc. Benjamin Franklin was like an honest Mark Zuckerberg in that respect.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jacquesm 4y ago
Yes, but which country gets to nationalize it then? I'm assuming you mean the USA, but where does that leave the users of all of the other countries that also use Facebook?
celsopitta 4y ago
I'm from Brazil, here we have more than 3000 national companies, handling everything from oil, mining and energy to banks and in the past even telecommunications. It was a disaster, you had to wait for about one year to have a land line installed and it costed almost as much as a car, you had to declare it in your taxes! Social media should be a protocol, in that way it will become naturally decentralized and way harder to censor or control, like email.
jjj123 4y ago
I find the replies to this fascinating. I don’t know if nationalization would work with FB, but it is interesting what a taboo it appears to be to even bring it up. Personally, I think 30 years ago the USPS should have made a nationalized email service at the very least.

How about if instead, we nationalize Facebook. The public square should not be owned by a private corporation. If that's not possible, yes: Facebook should be destroyed.

spydum 4y ago

Government controlled media and censorship, what could possibly go wrong?

AzzieElbab 4y ago
US Government is bound by first amendment, at least in theory
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  Suppose USGOV takes over Facebook, then is it bound by 1A for all users? Or just those in US jurisdictions? You'd surely need it to be taken over by a supra-national body like the UN, given it has a supra-national user base.
  - philipov 4y ago
    We could do a Bell Labs and force each nation's Facebook to be spun off into its own entity, with a federated interop protocol to connect them together. I have no delusions that such a thing would ever be allowed to happen, though.
  - kamarg 4y ago
    Pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled that only US citizens, regardless of jurisdiction, are afforded rights laid out in the Constitution.
    - gruez 4y ago
      Not exactly. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/904/aliens https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/904/aliens
- philipov 4y ago
  Exactly. As long as Facebook is a private corporation, the First Amendment protects their right to arbitrarily censor the speech on their platform however they wish. The way state-controlled media censorship has turned out in other countries is well-known, but having our public spaces controlled by a patsy of the government, who is not subject to the same restrictions as the government even in theory, is not a better outcome.
- xphilter 4y ago
  Not really. As the owner of a site, the government controls its own speech and is not under any obligation to show “both sides” of an argument. Sure, it can’t only show your comment vs mine, but it can definitely choose which propaganda to spread.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
It is apparently already like that with Facebook, but the government has a layer of plausible deniability. If the FBI can show up and tell Mark Zuckerberg to censor a story, that means Zuckerberg is effectively a state actor.
qwertyuiop_ 4y ago
Cuba

dinom 4y ago

Is Facebook the public square all of a sudden? I thought it was a private company.

naasking 4y ago
Privately owned public squares exist.
- dinom 4y ago
  Rest assured that next time I'm arrested for trespassing I won't be calling you for legal advice.
  - naasking 4y ago
    Good because I'm not a lawyer, but what I said is still true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
    - circumscribed 4y ago
      Indeed the principle feels highly relevant. The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
    - dinom 4y ago
      Lol, fair enough. Now we just need to convince folks that Facebook is a town, not say... a digital publication. Then it can be nationalized as was originally suggested. Although maybe the government should try using eminent domain before outright nationalization? Still, the whole idea seems like a stretch and a crazy one at that.
      - everforward 4y ago
        If you read the ruling, it's not a crazy stretch. "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Cf. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 985, 987, note 8, 157 A.L.R. 1081. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation." The argument here would be that Facebook is built and operated primarily as a benefit to the public (i.e. they draw income by being a benefit to the public), they are essentially a public function, and are subject to state regulation as such. Facebook would remain privately-held, and could either remain open to the public and subject to constitutional scrutiny, or they could close off and become some kind of a private club like Clubhouse. I haven't thought through the ramifications of doing so, but I think it could be legally supported.

pibechorro 4y ago

Nationalize? What is this North Korea?

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

The same problems with moderation would still exist, and as the previous commenter I think correctly pointed out, the various tribes will all still want the 'other' side's 'misinformation' censored and allow their own 'truths' put out for all to see. Zero moderation is a not workable solution because things would quickly escalate on the site (see what happens to AI chat bots when exposed to an unfiltered internet). They have to do some moderation and the more the do, the madder people get, the less they do the worse the site becomes. They therefore reach this balanced state which has BOTH angry users who feel their side is being censored AND widespread posts with dis/misinformation. It's the shittiest equilibrium.

treebeard901 4y ago

Nationalizing social media is a solution... It would never happen even though many problems with the current system would be solved. Freedom of Speech, 4th amendment rights, and it wouldnt necessarily have to be profitable so it defeats the current ad driven hate machine. Third party doctrine would no longer apply and so on. There is a precedent for it with USPS. When a national postal service was created it was done with the realization of the ability for corruption if a service like that was in private hands. Benjamin Franklin knew this because he often read mail being passed around for intelligence, etc. Benjamin Franklin was like an honest Mark Zuckerberg in that respect.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jacquesm 4y ago

Yes, but which country gets to nationalize it then? I'm assuming you mean the USA, but where does that leave the users of all of the other countries that also use Facebook?

celsopitta 4y ago

I'm from Brazil, here we have more than 3000 national companies, handling everything from oil, mining and energy to banks and in the past even telecommunications. It was a disaster, you had to wait for about one year to have a land line installed and it costed almost as much as a car, you had to declare it in your taxes! Social media should be a protocol, in that way it will become naturally decentralized and way harder to censor or control, like email.

jjj123 4y ago

I find the replies to this fascinating. I don’t know if nationalization would work with FB, but it is interesting what a taboo it appears to be to even bring it up. Personally, I think 30 years ago the USPS should have made a nationalized email service at the very least.