4 ms·
Well you shut down the idea yourself, would be completely non-viable due to jurisdiction issues, unless you'd want to follow the US position and even then you'd
by philippejara 4y ago
Well you shut down the idea yourself, would be completely non-viable due to jurisdiction issues, unless you'd want to follow the US position and even then you'd run into issues.
The biggest problem I'd say isn't necessarily the websites themselves but stuff like the app store and google play store, and things like infrastructure providers. Having your social media be removed from the apple store/google play store is basically killing them in the mass market, and we all know how incredibly selective they are especially when it comes to forbidding platforms that may contain porn(like tumblr for example and initially gab) while also but still allow twitter that is completely inundated with it. And that's before mentioning the downright mental idea that payment processors can just decide to not work with you anymore.
The social media itself I feel is the least of the things that would benefit from being treated closer to a public "utility" for the lack of a better word.
We're way past the point where people can just build their own stuff and be independent when targeting a significant audience(and sometimes even a smaller niche one), you need the support of payment providers, you need the support of app stores, you need the support of ddos mitigation companies/cdn's (especially in a post IOT world where your toaster is part of a botnet), and the list goes on.
- benj111 4y agoI didn't shut down the idea. I just raised the counterpoint. If Europe decided to say that you can't take down things arbitrarily. What would Facebook do about that? At this point in time a geographically splintered internet with freedom of speech seems better than what we've got at the moment.
- philippejara 4y agoI do believe the counterpoint kills the idea, is what I meant. A geographically splintered internet(or rather, geographically splintered "social medias") would just lead to a service showing up that is international and will grow a majority again and the whole cycle begins anew. The only way I can see this happening would be different instances for each country, as in things would get moderated based on the country laws in question, which I suppose could work in theory, but at that point having enough support staff to actively moderate on a country by country basis is doubtful given how it is currently.
- benj111 4y agoWell presumably moderators need to speak the various local languages. So I don't see why you can't extend that to don't ban people in territory X for mentioning blue eyes. I understand they don't put enough effort into moderating, because obviously mentioning blue eyes isn't anything. But they should be held accountable for that, not getting away with it, as is the situation we have now.