5 ms·

The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook. But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Yes I kno

The owner of Twitter is much richer than the CEO of Facebook. But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Yes I know this is about the EU. I’m more worried about a powerful government. Government has a “monopoly on violence”. Especially in the US between the electoral college, gerrymandering and the make up of Congress. It’s very much rule by the minority.

patcon 2y ago
> But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Anyone in a failing democracy. No one gets to opt out of the collective effects of social media
- scarface_74 2y ago
  There is nothing stopping you from not going to any social media. How do you propose the government regulate them?
solardev 2y ago
And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Name one billionaire whose products you are forced to use - outside of “natural monopolies” that are already regulated
  - solardev 2y ago
    This Twitter situation is one example. Many agencies/governments in the US use it as their primary or sole source of realtime public communications, even when they have email, texts, websites, etc. at their disposal. I would like that to be regulated (i.e. agencies required to post on public channels that don't require a proprietary login/account). I don't think that sort of regulation should extend to private entities, however, who should be able to communicate with their stakeholders however they please, even if I find it annoying.
    - scarface_74 2y ago
      I agree with that completely. If school systems have ways to contact people either individually or blast emails and texts, governments can too
ethbr1 2y ago
The extent to which poor people can appropriate a portion of that governmental "monopoly on violence" through democracy is the only real check on violence by the wealthy. Otherwise, wealth always wins. And uses those wins to ensure it remains wealthy.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  I don’t have to deal with any one private company except the ones that have a “natural monopoly” like utilities and they are already regulated and should be. It can even be argued that smart phones should be calculated since they are necessary in today’s world and are a duopoly. A powerful government can physically take away your freedoms.

patcon 2y ago

> But who needs “protection” from any social media company? Just don’t use social media. Anyone in a failing democracy. No one gets to opt out of the collective effects of social media

scarface_74 2y ago
There is nothing stopping you from not going to any social media. How do you propose the government regulate them?

solardev 2y ago

And rule by billionaires or hedge funds is preferable? They don't need physical violence to enshittify societies, especially since so much of government already responds only to that class. They ARE the ruling minority and what's left of democratic government is the only (dying) check against them. Soon there won't be any checks left and you'll get your wish of direct rule by the rich.

scarface_74 2y ago
Name one billionaire whose products you are forced to use - outside of “natural monopolies” that are already regulated
- solardev 2y ago
  This Twitter situation is one example. Many agencies/governments in the US use it as their primary or sole source of realtime public communications, even when they have email, texts, websites, etc. at their disposal. I would like that to be regulated (i.e. agencies required to post on public channels that don't require a proprietary login/account). I don't think that sort of regulation should extend to private entities, however, who should be able to communicate with their stakeholders however they please, even if I find it annoying.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    I agree with that completely. If school systems have ways to contact people either individually or blast emails and texts, governments can too

ethbr1 2y ago

The extent to which poor people can appropriate a portion of that governmental "monopoly on violence" through democracy is the only real check on violence by the wealthy. Otherwise, wealth always wins. And uses those wins to ensure it remains wealthy.

scarface_74 2y ago
I don’t have to deal with any one private company except the ones that have a “natural monopoly” like utilities and they are already regulated and should be. It can even be argued that smart phones should be calculated since they are necessary in today’s world and are a duopoly. A powerful government can physically take away your freedoms.