3 ms·

> Twitter it not the public square, it’s some private company’s arguing arena. The USA has privatized its public commons, with exception of a library and city

> Twitter it not the public square, it’s some private company’s arguing arena. The USA has privatized its public commons, with exception of a library and city hall. Twitter, Facebook, etc are the 21st c USA public commons. It's where the people are. It's where the local politicians are. The downside: it's owned by corporate privateers who extract wealth from dissent.

schmuelio 4y ago
It's not a public commons if it's owned by a private individual or company... Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >It's not a public commons if it's owned by a private individual or company... >Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does. Exactly. Folks who complain about the (lack of) moderation on some corporation's platform are, for the most part, certainly welcome to do so. However, those corporate platforms (unlike public platforms) have no responsibility to host anything they don't want to host. They are not your government. They are not your friends. They are not a public square. They are businesses whose goal is profit. And that goal isn't necessarily a bad goal either. However, the business models of those corporate platforms are dependent on showing ads to those who use those platforms. That creates a variety of perverse incentives, including (but not limited to) boosting engagement by pushing outrage and fear buttons to keep folks on the platform, watching the ads. And so I ask, does the above sound like a public square? It certainly doesn't to me. Rather, it sounds like a bunch of corporate actors taking whatever steps (regardless of impact on discourse) to maximize profit. Again, that's not inherently a bad thing. But it doesn't (and never will) fit the bill for a "public square."
  - noasaservice 4y ago
    > However, those corporate platforms (unlike public platforms) have no responsibility to host anything they don't want to host. Well... It's a lot uglier of an issue than you state. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/can-government-officials-block-you-social-media-new-decision-makes-law-murkier https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/can-government-officia...
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      While that certainly is an issue, it's orthogonal (and not really relevant) to the point I made.
pixl97 4y ago
Ok, show me where the EU has made a public commons on the internet?
Nursie 4y ago
I genuinely don't think it is. At the risk of paraphrasing one of the replies below, and probably to repeat myself - it's more of an arena showing ads, in which the contestants are encouraged by onlookers and the organiser to argue and aggravate, to express thoughts in such short-form that nuance and understanding are lost, to create spectacle. For profit. Regardless of moderation or censorship, a public square would/should operate quite differently.

schmuelio 4y ago

It's not a public commons if it's owned by a private individual or company... Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does.

nobody9999 4y ago
>It's not a public commons if it's owned by a private individual or company... >Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does. Exactly. Folks who complain about the (lack of) moderation on some corporation's platform are, for the most part, certainly welcome to do so. However, those corporate platforms (unlike public platforms) have no responsibility to host anything they don't want to host. They are not your government. They are not your friends. They are not a public square. They are businesses whose goal is profit. And that goal isn't necessarily a bad goal either. However, the business models of those corporate platforms are dependent on showing ads to those who use those platforms. That creates a variety of perverse incentives, including (but not limited to) boosting engagement by pushing outrage and fear buttons to keep folks on the platform, watching the ads. And so I ask, does the above sound like a public square? It certainly doesn't to me. Rather, it sounds like a bunch of corporate actors taking whatever steps (regardless of impact on discourse) to maximize profit. Again, that's not inherently a bad thing. But it doesn't (and never will) fit the bill for a "public square."
- noasaservice 4y ago
  > However, those corporate platforms (unlike public platforms) have no responsibility to host anything they don't want to host. Well... It's a lot uglier of an issue than you state. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/can-government-officials-block-you-social-media-new-decision-makes-law-murkier https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/02/can-government-officia...
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    While that certainly is an issue, it's orthogonal (and not really relevant) to the point I made.

pixl97 4y ago

Ok, show me where the EU has made a public commons on the internet?

Nursie 4y ago

I genuinely don't think it is. At the risk of paraphrasing one of the replies below, and probably to repeat myself - it's more of an arena showing ads, in which the contestants are encouraged by onlookers and the organiser to argue and aggravate, to express thoughts in such short-form that nuance and understanding are lost, to create spectacle. For profit. Regardless of moderation or censorship, a public square would/should operate quite differently.