7 ms·

This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. They simply have too much power over lives of billions. This article is just ano

This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. They simply have too much power over lives of billions. This article is just another reminder of this. At scale that Meta operates, this algorithmically decided domain blockings mean nothing to them, but everything to hundred's of non-profits. There need to be legally mandated protections so things like this never happen again.

invalidusernam3 4y ago
I don't think nationalisation is the answer, imagine the additional layer of bureaucracy dealing with a government entity. Large companies like Facebook need to be regulated by the government, there needs to be laws in place for stuff like this.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  The European Union finally did it with the Digital Market Act. The law enforces access to market place and interoperability between messaging platforms. I’m surprised we don’t hear much about it here. My guess is that American companies like to pretend it doesn’t matter in case it gave idea to US customers and silently fight it in courts in Europe.
TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
Don't nationalise them, break them up. A state monopoly is preferable to a private monopoly, but in this case there's no reason we have to have a monopoly. Facebook and Google do too many things.
- paintman252 4y ago
  >Facebook and Google do too many things. Google? Definitely. Meta? Not really. All Meta has is two social networks and one messaging service. They haven't really experienced huge success in anything else. They MAY hit big in VR/AR space, but that's yet to be determined.
  - bilekas 4y ago
    Just did a check to see their subsidiaries and they actually have way more than I expected : https://inspirationfeed.com/what-companies-does-facebook-own/ https://inspirationfeed.com/what-companies-does-facebook-own...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - xphos 4y ago
    They still would definitely met the standard of a monopsony if not a monopoly. Its scary that an enormous number of people start and stop the information searching at google or those two social networks. I think its an oversimplification to say that just breaking them will solve the issue but they definitely handle a governmental level of power in terms of social after effects, which is why nation states target them for fake news.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Which market are they a monopsony (only one buyer) in?
  - eppp 4y ago
    On one hand you say they are so important they need to be nationalized and on the other you dismiss them as almost a couple of trivial apps. Which one is it?
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Facebook is approaching 100 acquisitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... Feels like a lot and not just three entities. Additionally, Facebook primarily does acquisitions as a form of hiring, according to Mark Zuckerberg himself. They buy the company so they can get the employees to come and work at Facebook.
    - 4y ago
- londons_explore 4y ago
  Communications platforms naturally become a monopoly. The biggest platform is the most useful one because you can talk to most people on it, so people prefer to join the biggest platform and it gets bigger.
  - ydlr 4y ago
    That is easily fixed with legislation. We now have multiple phone companies that all interoperate. No reason we can't require the same from our many facebooks.
- causi 4y ago
  Oh, for the days when you got banned from one website and you just went to a different website.
londons_explore 4y ago
Nationalisation wouldn't fix it. There are plenty of rules and procedures in every nation which screw over random 'little guys'... For example, "oh, you have a disability and can't work? Here, have some state support. Oh - we just found you helped look after your neighbours children once. That counts as work. Therefore you lied to us. Thats fraud. All your state support will now be withdrawn."
- warbeforepeace 4y ago
  Look how well the US government handled the small business loans during covid. It wasn't the small businesses really getting them.
ceejayoz 4y ago
I haven't seen much information on how the GDPR's Article 22 right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated means is going in these scenarios. I hear a lot about other provisions, but Article 22 seems like an important experiment.
indymike 4y ago
> This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. No. Giving this additional power to the government will not have the outcome you want. When something becomes too powerful, the solution is not to further concentrate that power into less accountable hands.
- kyleyeats 4y ago
  It might be the only way to make Facebook worse.
- psychoslave 4y ago
  Nationalization is not necessary more concentration and less many accountable hands. Well, it depends on the governance obviously. If you talk some autocratic regime, where the king proclaimed "I am the state", that fits your description for sure. On the other hand, if you are looking at a direct democracy regime, you could hardly make the power more pervasive, and every citizen has to carry its part of accountability on every social matter.
  - indymike 4y ago
    > Well, it depends on the governance obviously. Three reasons why nationalization is a bad idea: * Power disparity. As it is, Facebook is destroying people and business without any accountability. Now we hand that to the state who: * Has all the incentive to destroy anything that competes, and the government has the ultimate way to do it: just outlaw the competition. If you think the product is bad today, imagine how fantastic it will be in 10 years of no competition. * Has all the incentive to make people use it. So, it becomes oppressive and horrible and the government decides, hey, let's make everyone use this thing for essential services like payments and democracy! All in all, nationalization of a social network is one of the worst directions we can take, regardless of politics. It's just a bad idea.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > the government has the ultimate way to do it: just outlaw the competition > So, it becomes oppressive and horrible and the government decides, hey, let's make everyone use this thing for essential services like payments and democracy These things can only fly in a non functioning democracy, which, while the US is coming dangerously close to, is not there yet.
is_true 4y ago
Would you be ok with the chinese or argentinian government running Alphabet or Meta? I don't think most government are better than any corporation.
- psychoslave 4y ago
  Last time I checked, free access to education, care and protection against many abuses where provided by governmental organisms. "government are better than any corporation" (or its reverse) means nothing if you don’t provide some specific topics and possible metrics to evaluate them. Also, not all government and corporations behaves in the very same way.
  - is_true 4y ago
    Sorry, don't have time to show you that most governments do shitty things to people all the time.
Xeoncross 4y ago
I know sub-optimal government is the default solution to all issues, but man, they are terrible with the monopolies they do control like healthcare, public education and infrastructure.
onion2k 4y ago
There need to be legally mandated protections so things like this never happen again. Such protection for websites would be an implicit protection for Meta's de facto monopoly on text-based social media. What needs to happen is for these sorts of bans to still happen, but for the public to understand the impact of those bans and move away from a single website for all their social media needs if they want to see posts from everyone. Competition in the space would fix the problem. It'd mean the impact of a ban is massively diminished, and that companies are incentivized not to issue unwarranted bans because their users would go somewhere else. While both users and advertisers have no real choice where to go Meta will hold on to their monopoly.
rrwo 4y ago
> This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. Nationalised by what country? US? UK? France? Russia? Saudi Arabia? India? China? Would we have country-specific and isolated social media and search engines? Even in nominally free western countries, do you really want the government controlling what can be in a search engine or posted on social media?
bachmeier 4y ago
Paul Romer has offered a proposal: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/nobel-laureate-paul-romer-how-curb-big-techs-power https://news.uchicago.edu/story/nobel-laureate-paul-romer-ho...
stall84 4y ago
I'd be in favor of trust-busting them into smaller entities before nationalization .. While nationalization might work for smaller western European countries, it isn't going to work in a political machine the size of the united states
laundermaf 4y ago
You’re placing way too much trust in the government, the same agency held hostage by a private company that forbid them to automatically calculate the taxes owed by its citizens. Plus why what the government do with a social network? They’d still need to moderate it — at atrocious prices at that.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Nah. Just make providing free services then blatantly fucking people over who rely on them a very risky thing to do. Like "attractive nuisance" laws that can make you liable if some kid you've never seen before drowns in a pool on your property if you didn't take reasonable measures to keep a kid from wandering into the pool. Or various regulations that make certain demands on businesses that open up physical spaces to the public (like stores or malls or whatever). Separately I'd also like to see us outlaw the kind of data collection & retention that lets Facebook's business model exist, but I do think making it so offering free services doesn't absolve you of all responsibility is something we should do, too, and is more directly relevant to this.
smileysteve 4y ago
So the government, for and by the people can have a money drain that is used for disinformation and cyber bullying? Just delete Facebook, it's not worth it.

invalidusernam3 4y ago

I don't think nationalisation is the answer, imagine the additional layer of bureaucracy dealing with a government entity. Large companies like Facebook need to be regulated by the government, there needs to be laws in place for stuff like this.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
The European Union finally did it with the Digital Market Act. The law enforces access to market place and interoperability between messaging platforms. I’m surprised we don’t hear much about it here. My guess is that American companies like to pretend it doesn’t matter in case it gave idea to US customers and silently fight it in courts in Europe.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

Don't nationalise them, break them up. A state monopoly is preferable to a private monopoly, but in this case there's no reason we have to have a monopoly. Facebook and Google do too many things.

paintman252 4y ago
>Facebook and Google do too many things. Google? Definitely. Meta? Not really. All Meta has is two social networks and one messaging service. They haven't really experienced huge success in anything else. They MAY hit big in VR/AR space, but that's yet to be determined.
- bilekas 4y ago
  Just did a check to see their subsidiaries and they actually have way more than I expected : https://inspirationfeed.com/what-companies-does-facebook-own/ https://inspirationfeed.com/what-companies-does-facebook-own...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- xphos 4y ago
  They still would definitely met the standard of a monopsony if not a monopoly. Its scary that an enormous number of people start and stop the information searching at google or those two social networks. I think its an oversimplification to say that just breaking them will solve the issue but they definitely handle a governmental level of power in terms of social after effects, which is why nation states target them for fake news.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Which market are they a monopsony (only one buyer) in?
- eppp 4y ago
  On one hand you say they are so important they need to be nationalized and on the other you dismiss them as almost a couple of trivial apps. Which one is it?
- capableweb 4y ago
  Facebook is approaching 100 acquisitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... Feels like a lot and not just three entities. Additionally, Facebook primarily does acquisitions as a form of hiring, according to Mark Zuckerberg himself. They buy the company so they can get the employees to come and work at Facebook.
  - 4y ago
londons_explore 4y ago
Communications platforms naturally become a monopoly. The biggest platform is the most useful one because you can talk to most people on it, so people prefer to join the biggest platform and it gets bigger.
- ydlr 4y ago
  That is easily fixed with legislation. We now have multiple phone companies that all interoperate. No reason we can't require the same from our many facebooks.
causi 4y ago
Oh, for the days when you got banned from one website and you just went to a different website.

londons_explore 4y ago

Nationalisation wouldn't fix it. There are plenty of rules and procedures in every nation which screw over random 'little guys'... For example, "oh, you have a disability and can't work? Here, have some state support. Oh - we just found you helped look after your neighbours children once. That counts as work. Therefore you lied to us. Thats fraud. All your state support will now be withdrawn."

warbeforepeace 4y ago
Look how well the US government handled the small business loans during covid. It wasn't the small businesses really getting them.

ceejayoz 4y ago

I haven't seen much information on how the GDPR's Article 22 right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated means is going in these scenarios. I hear a lot about other provisions, but Article 22 seems like an important experiment.

indymike 4y ago

> This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. No. Giving this additional power to the government will not have the outcome you want. When something becomes too powerful, the solution is not to further concentrate that power into less accountable hands.

kyleyeats 4y ago
It might be the only way to make Facebook worse.
psychoslave 4y ago
Nationalization is not necessary more concentration and less many accountable hands. Well, it depends on the governance obviously. If you talk some autocratic regime, where the king proclaimed "I am the state", that fits your description for sure. On the other hand, if you are looking at a direct democracy regime, you could hardly make the power more pervasive, and every citizen has to carry its part of accountability on every social matter.
- indymike 4y ago
  > Well, it depends on the governance obviously. Three reasons why nationalization is a bad idea: * Power disparity. As it is, Facebook is destroying people and business without any accountability. Now we hand that to the state who: * Has all the incentive to destroy anything that competes, and the government has the ultimate way to do it: just outlaw the competition. If you think the product is bad today, imagine how fantastic it will be in 10 years of no competition. * Has all the incentive to make people use it. So, it becomes oppressive and horrible and the government decides, hey, let's make everyone use this thing for essential services like payments and democracy! All in all, nationalization of a social network is one of the worst directions we can take, regardless of politics. It's just a bad idea.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > the government has the ultimate way to do it: just outlaw the competition > So, it becomes oppressive and horrible and the government decides, hey, let's make everyone use this thing for essential services like payments and democracy These things can only fly in a non functioning democracy, which, while the US is coming dangerously close to, is not there yet.

is_true 4y ago

Would you be ok with the chinese or argentinian government running Alphabet or Meta? I don't think most government are better than any corporation.

psychoslave 4y ago
Last time I checked, free access to education, care and protection against many abuses where provided by governmental organisms. "government are better than any corporation" (or its reverse) means nothing if you don’t provide some specific topics and possible metrics to evaluate them. Also, not all government and corporations behaves in the very same way.
- is_true 4y ago
  Sorry, don't have time to show you that most governments do shitty things to people all the time.

Xeoncross 4y ago

I know sub-optimal government is the default solution to all issues, but man, they are terrible with the monopolies they do control like healthcare, public education and infrastructure.

onion2k 4y ago

There need to be legally mandated protections so things like this never happen again. Such protection for websites would be an implicit protection for Meta's de facto monopoly on text-based social media. What needs to happen is for these sorts of bans to still happen, but for the public to understand the impact of those bans and move away from a single website for all their social media needs if they want to see posts from everyone. Competition in the space would fix the problem. It'd mean the impact of a ban is massively diminished, and that companies are incentivized not to issue unwarranted bans because their users would go somewhere else. While both users and advertisers have no real choice where to go Meta will hold on to their monopoly.

rrwo 4y ago

> This is why massive companies like Meta and Alphabet needs to be nationalised. Nationalised by what country? US? UK? France? Russia? Saudi Arabia? India? China? Would we have country-specific and isolated social media and search engines? Even in nominally free western countries, do you really want the government controlling what can be in a search engine or posted on social media?

bachmeier 4y ago

Paul Romer has offered a proposal: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/nobel-laureate-paul-romer-how-curb-big-techs-power https://news.uchicago.edu/story/nobel-laureate-paul-romer-ho...

stall84 4y ago

I'd be in favor of trust-busting them into smaller entities before nationalization .. While nationalization might work for smaller western European countries, it isn't going to work in a political machine the size of the united states

laundermaf 4y ago

You’re placing way too much trust in the government, the same agency held hostage by a private company that forbid them to automatically calculate the taxes owed by its citizens. Plus why what the government do with a social network? They’d still need to moderate it — at atrocious prices at that.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Nah. Just make providing free services then blatantly fucking people over who rely on them a very risky thing to do. Like "attractive nuisance" laws that can make you liable if some kid you've never seen before drowns in a pool on your property if you didn't take reasonable measures to keep a kid from wandering into the pool. Or various regulations that make certain demands on businesses that open up physical spaces to the public (like stores or malls or whatever). Separately I'd also like to see us outlaw the kind of data collection & retention that lets Facebook's business model exist, but I do think making it so offering free services doesn't absolve you of all responsibility is something we should do, too, and is more directly relevant to this.

smileysteve 4y ago

So the government, for and by the people can have a money drain that is used for disinformation and cyber bullying? Just delete Facebook, it's not worth it.