2 ms·

I think this reflects very much the Silicon Valley way of thinking about internet governance, in which there seem to exist only two imaginable forms of it: Eith

by xg15 2y ago

I think this reflects very much the Silicon Valley way of thinking about internet governance, in which there seem to exist only two imaginable forms of it: Either anarchy, in which there are no rules at all and the only limits are technological, with full-on tragedy of the commons unfolding - or oligarchy/corpocracy in which whoever is the most powerful private actor gets to make the rules and then of course gets to make them in their own interest, not the common interest. Didn't we have some more forms of government available for discussion? E.g., after the xz backdoor, I read a call of OSS maintainers that critical OSS projects should be state-funded as they literally comprise critical infrastructure. Why couldn't we do the same with social networks?

krapp 2y ago
>I read a call of OSS maintainers that critical OSS projects should be state-funded as they literally comprise critical infrastructure. Why couldn't we do the same with social networks? If the goal is to avoid "enshittification" I don't think the solution is to have governments control social media and then have those platforms be subject to bureaucracy, decency and profanity laws, surveillance and propaganda (more so than currently) and the fickle wrath of the taxpaying voter. Realize how little critical infrastructure actually gets funded, and then add the psychotic dog-water paranoia of half the US thinking that infrastructure is a psyop by communists and "groomers" to turn their kids gay, and making that an issue in the polls. PBS is probably the closest analogue to government run social media I can think of. Half the government and their constituents consider it "liberal propaganda" and want to defund it entirely, and it has constantly has to go begging hat in hand just to stay afloat, and then pursue commercialism to make up for the deficit. You think social media is bad now? Imagine if you're required by law to sign up with proof of citizenship and your SSN is your password. And every platform is constantly putting Wikipedia style donation popups. And it's a misdemeanor to post swear words or material deemed "inappropriate."

by xg15 2y ago

krapp 2y ago

>I read a call of OSS maintainers that critical OSS projects should be state-funded as they literally comprise critical infrastructure. Why couldn't we do the same with social networks? If the goal is to avoid "enshittification" I don't think the solution is to have governments control social media and then have those platforms be subject to bureaucracy, decency and profanity laws, surveillance and propaganda (more so than currently) and the fickle wrath of the taxpaying voter. Realize how little critical infrastructure actually gets funded, and then add the psychotic dog-water paranoia of half the US thinking that infrastructure is a psyop by communists and "groomers" to turn their kids gay, and making that an issue in the polls. PBS is probably the closest analogue to government run social media I can think of. Half the government and their constituents consider it "liberal propaganda" and want to defund it entirely, and it has constantly has to go begging hat in hand just to stay afloat, and then pursue commercialism to make up for the deficit. You think social media is bad now? Imagine if you're required by law to sign up with proof of citizenship and your SSN is your password. And every platform is constantly putting Wikipedia style donation popups. And it's a misdemeanor to post swear words or material deemed "inappropriate."