5 ms·

I think the Chinese have something to teach us. Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the powe

I think the Chinese have something to teach us. Basically, once a social network surpasses say, 20M users, it becomes a defacto political entity, with the power to move elections. Given this immense power, the government should regulate accordingly. Instead of passing detailed regulations though, I am of the opinion that if a company passes 200B USD in enterprise value, that Congress should get the right to appoint 50% of the board of directors. This way, the company's responsibilities match its defacto political power to sway elections. Basically, make Facebook into an Amtrak or USPS. If Facebook does not like this idea, then they can split the company into pieces. Additional benefit: this functions also as anti-trust regulation. Amazon would be subject to this as well.

kweingar 4y ago
Why stop at the board? Why not have the government actually buy half of the company? Then the government can profit as well, like a sovereign wealth fund
- favflam 4y ago
  My suggestions and implication of the suggestion is that companies will split themselves before they reach this level. Anti trust if you will. If no anti trust, then become a federal agency.
caf 4y ago
So your solution to the worry that large social networks have the power to move elections, is to put that power in the hands of the people with the most incentive to move elections?
- favflam 4y ago
  Better Congress that operates under the US constitutions and bi-annual elections than shareholders, no? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    You mean the same government where Montana has just as many Senators as California and the person who won the popular vote in 2016 lost the Presidential election?
    - chrismcb 4y ago
      You can't compare the two. They didn't run a campaign to win the popular vote. The outcome night have been different if they had
      - scarface74 4y ago
        And the fact that the US is not a representative democracy and the small states have much more representation in government than their population should allow?
  - caf 4y ago
    You are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections? Certainly, if the alternative is that those in government get to wield it instead. I would wager I've considerably more trust in government and politicians than average - I do believe that in the main they're working very hard for what they perceive to be the greater good - but I draw the line at the politicians getting to directly control the political media. Part of this is that I don't think Facebook's power alone is "immense" - but if you had all of the large media centrally controlled then you'd be getting there. The very idea completely compromises those "bi-annual elections". How can you effectively challenge the state when all the large media is state-controlled?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
scarface74 4y ago
You realize that there was just another story on HN where the government pushed BigTech to censor information around Covid? This is the same government you want to give more power? Do you really think that the in power government won’t push corporations to keep them in power? It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power.
- biglearner1day 4y ago
  > It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power. It amazes me that we let social media platforms run freely with whichever narrative, ideology they enforce. Government influence has in most cases a negative outcome, but letting these platforms, especially ones at the scale of Twitter and Facebook, act freely is unwise.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So instead we give government more power to control the narrative? Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative. Would you also want the government to control RedState? FoxNews? Truth Socisl?
    - biglearner1day 4y ago
      I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time. Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already. > Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towards their progressive ideology. It's equally wrong if they had a different bias. You, we, need to stop being divisive, it's toxic.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        So no matter how bad you believe private corporations are at controlling the narrative. Do you think having government control is better?
chrismcb 4y ago
This would be the opposite of freedom. The government has no business to be involved in companies
epakai 4y ago
Not sure about this particular solution, but I really think antitrust is where it's at. Big companies should do big things, not collect many little things under their umbrella. If you're going to do big things (or even big collections of little things) then be regulated because your outcomes affect so many others. I don't think antitrust does much to Twitter. So that reduces its popularity as a solution among politicians. I feel like politicians ceded their power to Twitter. So I write it off as 'you made your bed, now lie in it'.

kweingar 4y ago

Why stop at the board? Why not have the government actually buy half of the company? Then the government can profit as well, like a sovereign wealth fund

favflam 4y ago
My suggestions and implication of the suggestion is that companies will split themselves before they reach this level. Anti trust if you will. If no anti trust, then become a federal agency.

caf 4y ago

So your solution to the worry that large social networks have the power to move elections, is to put that power in the hands of the people with the most incentive to move elections?

favflam 4y ago
Better Congress that operates under the US constitutions and bi-annual elections than shareholders, no? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections?
- scarface74 4y ago
  You mean the same government where Montana has just as many Senators as California and the person who won the popular vote in 2016 lost the Presidential election?
  - chrismcb 4y ago
    You can't compare the two. They didn't run a campaign to win the popular vote. The outcome night have been different if they had
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And the fact that the US is not a representative democracy and the small states have much more representation in government than their population should allow?
- caf 4y ago
  You are saying that shareholders ought to hold this immense power that say Facebook has to move elections? Certainly, if the alternative is that those in government get to wield it instead. I would wager I've considerably more trust in government and politicians than average - I do believe that in the main they're working very hard for what they perceive to be the greater good - but I draw the line at the politicians getting to directly control the political media. Part of this is that I don't think Facebook's power alone is "immense" - but if you had all of the large media centrally controlled then you'd be getting there. The very idea completely compromises those "bi-annual elections". How can you effectively challenge the state when all the large media is state-controlled?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

scarface74 4y ago

You realize that there was just another story on HN where the government pushed BigTech to censor information around Covid? This is the same government you want to give more power? Do you really think that the in power government won’t push corporations to keep them in power? It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power.

biglearner1day 4y ago
> It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power. It amazes me that we let social media platforms run freely with whichever narrative, ideology they enforce. Government influence has in most cases a negative outcome, but letting these platforms, especially ones at the scale of Twitter and Facebook, act freely is unwise.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So instead we give government more power to control the narrative? Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative. Would you also want the government to control RedState? FoxNews? Truth Socisl?
  - biglearner1day 4y ago
    I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time. Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already. > Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towards their progressive ideology. It's equally wrong if they had a different bias. You, we, need to stop being divisive, it's toxic.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      So no matter how bad you believe private corporations are at controlling the narrative. Do you think having government control is better?

chrismcb 4y ago

This would be the opposite of freedom. The government has no business to be involved in companies

epakai 4y ago

Not sure about this particular solution, but I really think antitrust is where it's at. Big companies should do big things, not collect many little things under their umbrella. If you're going to do big things (or even big collections of little things) then be regulated because your outcomes affect so many others. I don't think antitrust does much to Twitter. So that reduces its popularity as a solution among politicians. I feel like politicians ceded their power to Twitter. So I write it off as 'you made your bed, now lie in it'.