4 ms·

> but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no

> but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no one in history has ever had. I think a bazaar or carnival is a better metaphor, since a town hall is a brick and mortar thing that lasts into posterity, whereas a social network is more temporary > When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole. Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? There's nothing permanent about the current social networks that are popular right now

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
> Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  You don't live in a town, though. You live in a privately owned-and-operated digital Olive Garden, which Elon Musk bought and made Confederate Flags mandatory or whatever. The town already decided that's okay a few hundred years ago, and reversing that stance would require pushing out all the restaurants people know and love.
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    you can beat any analogy to death, it doesn't mean you should.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Twitter is not analogous with a town, though. That's the thesis of my original comment, and I'm using your metaphor to explain how Twitter is not a public asset.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        You've gotten lost in the weeds, my original comment said town hall (or town square if you prefer), and twitter IS analogous to a town hall where people gather to speak to audiences. Town got pulled in when I pointed out that rights over speech wrt to these places still exist even though someone can move to a different town (to presumably gain access to a different town hall).
- spritefs 4y ago
  > And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town. Towns are municipalities, twitter is a private company. The more I look at this metaphor, the less it makes sense

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago

> Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.

smoldesu 4y ago
You don't live in a town, though. You live in a privately owned-and-operated digital Olive Garden, which Elon Musk bought and made Confederate Flags mandatory or whatever. The town already decided that's okay a few hundred years ago, and reversing that stance would require pushing out all the restaurants people know and love.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  you can beat any analogy to death, it doesn't mean you should.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Twitter is not analogous with a town, though. That's the thesis of my original comment, and I'm using your metaphor to explain how Twitter is not a public asset.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      You've gotten lost in the weeds, my original comment said town hall (or town square if you prefer), and twitter IS analogous to a town hall where people gather to speak to audiences. Town got pulled in when I pointed out that rights over speech wrt to these places still exist even though someone can move to a different town (to presumably gain access to a different town hall).
spritefs 4y ago
> And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town. Towns are municipalities, twitter is a private company. The more I look at this metaphor, the less it makes sense