3 ms·

I do think we’ve entered a grey area of rights. By centralizing communication like Facebook has, they’ve placed themselves in the funky place of being the arbi

I do think we’ve entered a grey area of rights. By centralizing communication like Facebook has, they’ve placed themselves in the funky place of being the arbiter for communication through their social graph. You don’t own your audience, they do. You don’t have direct to audience communication (even if your audience is just your friends and family!) - they do. Facebook owns the content delivery channel. And so they control what is permitted to flow through that channel. I honestly don’t think there is a role government has to play in this [1]. This isn’t a regulation thing IMO, it’s an architecture thing. I think the solution is to agree with you on your points and build platforms that allow people to communicate directly with their audience without having to go through any centralized gate keeper. [1] other than stopping the laundering of 1st amendment violations they’ve committed through the loophole of separating censorship “requests” from enforcement.

maeln 2y ago
> I do think we’ve entered a grey area of rights. > By centralizing human communication like Facebook has, they’ve placed themselves in the funky place of being the arbiter for communication through their social graph. You don’t own your audience, they do. You don’t have direct to audience communication (even if your audience is just your friends and family!) - they do. Respectfully mate, how is that any different than radio, TV and newspaper before ? If anything, it is far better now, you have at least many platform to choose from and you can host your own.
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  The comparison to letters and/or phone calls is more relevant in this context than radio and TV.
- r3trohack3r 2y ago
  It’s not. The internet is objectively better than broadcast mediums. But it’s a quirky bug we’ve discovered in scaling the architecture of the web that we are going to address. Soon you’re going to own your own content distribution channels.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  We understood the danger of centralization with radio and newspapers, that's why there was a limitation on how many stations one individual/company could own.
no_wizard 2y ago
Well there is one legal avenue we could have which is around interoperability. We could pass regulations that force social media companies to provide interoperable access to data there by making the platforms independent

maeln 2y ago

> I do think we’ve entered a grey area of rights. > By centralizing human communication like Facebook has, they’ve placed themselves in the funky place of being the arbiter for communication through their social graph. You don’t own your audience, they do. You don’t have direct to audience communication (even if your audience is just your friends and family!) - they do. Respectfully mate, how is that any different than radio, TV and newspaper before ? If anything, it is far better now, you have at least many platform to choose from and you can host your own.

_Algernon_ 2y ago
The comparison to letters and/or phone calls is more relevant in this context than radio and TV.
r3trohack3r 2y ago
It’s not. The internet is objectively better than broadcast mediums. But it’s a quirky bug we’ve discovered in scaling the architecture of the web that we are going to address. Soon you’re going to own your own content distribution channels.
throwaway48476 2y ago
We understood the danger of centralization with radio and newspapers, that's why there was a limitation on how many stations one individual/company could own.

no_wizard 2y ago

Well there is one legal avenue we could have which is around interoperability. We could pass regulations that force social media companies to provide interoperable access to data there by making the platforms independent