5 ms·

This is government overreach. These are novelty/fun apps. They are not critical infrastructure or needed in any way. This would be like a court ordering a local

This is government overreach. These are novelty/fun apps. They are not critical infrastructure or needed in any way. This would be like a court ordering a local bar to serve more than just beer and wine, to accomodate people who like sake and soju. You have free choice to use the social platforms that you want to use. Really don't understand this kind of action tbh.

suddenlybananas 1y ago
Bars are heavily, heavily regulated actually. You could have chosen a better example.
- richwater 1y ago
  They're heavily regulated but not regarding what liqueur and beer they have to offer...which is exactly what OP was comparing it to.
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    Actually, in many places there are regulations on these things. For example, in France, they are legally obligated to serve several non-alcoholic drinks if they serve beer and wine.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > but not regarding what liqueur and beer they have to offer Try selling moonshine you brewed under the counter, and you'll quickly learn how much regulation there is.
    - vanviegen 1y ago
      > moonshine you brewed under the counter That sounds like as good a metaphor for addictive and unhealthy social media feeds as any! :-)
  - advisedwang 1y ago
    Many jurisdictions do in fact include what drinks are available as license conditions. E.g. A license for beer and wine can be easier to get than a license for liquor. Or brewery (beer only) get a special category with less restrictions (e.g. they aren't required to provide food) etc etc
callc 1y ago
Let me offer a different opinion. Facebook is a massive part of social media. Billions of users. It is apart of society in its sheer size. A society decided “we want to make this better” and acted appropriately. I think it’s a noble pursuit for a society to attempt to reduce the clearly negative aspects of social media. There is no real freedom of choice. The network effect cements big players positions. Try telling an 80 year old grandma with a 20 year old laptop to use mastodon. Likely no one she knows is on it. Finally, individuals make essentially no difference when choosing to not use FB. But when choosing to not go to a local bar, that may be 0.03% loss of their monthly revenue. The only actor that can reasonably bargain with huge organizations is other huge organizations.
- whalesalad 1y ago
  > There is no real freedom of choice but there is? simply choose to not use facebook.
  - callc 1y ago
    I guess so, and that definitely is the healthier option! That’s what I’ve been doing for close to 15 years. The only way you can exist on the modern world is to accept the TOS and crap that a small number of companies are in control over. Saying “just don’t use major tech services” makes people revert back to older methods like snail mail, which is just silly, not a real choice. The consequences of “simply choosing no” matters. If that means you can’t interact in modern society, that means that service is essential, and should be tested as such.
balder1991 1y ago
This is true when there’s plenty of competition that matter. When everybody and every business is in one app, the network effect forces everyone to be there or be invisible. So the “essential infrastructure” label is kinda debatable. I suppose it’s essential for many businesses. So your analogy should be more like there’s one big shopping mall network in the city that basically everyone has to go because certain stores are only there — and the owners bought any competitor that seemed to start becoming popular in the past so there’s no perspective of competition either.

suddenlybananas 1y ago

Bars are heavily, heavily regulated actually. You could have chosen a better example.

richwater 1y ago
They're heavily regulated but not regarding what liqueur and beer they have to offer...which is exactly what OP was comparing it to.
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  Actually, in many places there are regulations on these things. For example, in France, they are legally obligated to serve several non-alcoholic drinks if they serve beer and wine.
- troupo 1y ago
  > but not regarding what liqueur and beer they have to offer Try selling moonshine you brewed under the counter, and you'll quickly learn how much regulation there is.
  - vanviegen 1y ago
    > moonshine you brewed under the counter That sounds like as good a metaphor for addictive and unhealthy social media feeds as any! :-)
- advisedwang 1y ago
  Many jurisdictions do in fact include what drinks are available as license conditions. E.g. A license for beer and wine can be easier to get than a license for liquor. Or brewery (beer only) get a special category with less restrictions (e.g. they aren't required to provide food) etc etc

callc 1y ago

Let me offer a different opinion. Facebook is a massive part of social media. Billions of users. It is apart of society in its sheer size. A society decided “we want to make this better” and acted appropriately. I think it’s a noble pursuit for a society to attempt to reduce the clearly negative aspects of social media. There is no real freedom of choice. The network effect cements big players positions. Try telling an 80 year old grandma with a 20 year old laptop to use mastodon. Likely no one she knows is on it. Finally, individuals make essentially no difference when choosing to not use FB. But when choosing to not go to a local bar, that may be 0.03% loss of their monthly revenue. The only actor that can reasonably bargain with huge organizations is other huge organizations.

whalesalad 1y ago
> There is no real freedom of choice but there is? simply choose to not use facebook.
- callc 1y ago
  I guess so, and that definitely is the healthier option! That’s what I’ve been doing for close to 15 years. The only way you can exist on the modern world is to accept the TOS and crap that a small number of companies are in control over. Saying “just don’t use major tech services” makes people revert back to older methods like snail mail, which is just silly, not a real choice. The consequences of “simply choosing no” matters. If that means you can’t interact in modern society, that means that service is essential, and should be tested as such.

balder1991 1y ago

This is true when there’s plenty of competition that matter. When everybody and every business is in one app, the network effect forces everyone to be there or be invisible. So the “essential infrastructure” label is kinda debatable. I suppose it’s essential for many businesses. So your analogy should be more like there’s one big shopping mall network in the city that basically everyone has to go because certain stores are only there — and the owners bought any competitor that seemed to start becoming popular in the past so there’s no perspective of competition either.