4 ms·
it seems like this whole discussion, both the proposed law and EFFs full throated support for social media giants is getting lost in the weeds. we used to have
by convolvatron 1mo ago
it seems like this whole discussion, both the proposed law and EFFs full throated support for social media giants is getting lost in the weeds.
we used to have a small number of media outlets for structural reasons. and we were concerned enough about their ability to filter what everyone saw that we tried to pass some laws that's weren't very useful or effective
now that the structural barriers are gone, do we see a greater diversity of editorial decision making, a greater number of channels in which to learn about the world. we could easily have a world where every single person could parameterize their own agents or choose from sets of parameters to present customized views on the sea of information available.
instead we see a massive concentration of control. instead of trying to legislate the behavior of a company whose entire profit is based on manipulating the narrative we all see, shouldn't we be promoting alternatives? if we are going to legislate meta instead of picking one little aspect maybe demand instead that some of of the core functions like data and identity be open access?
- pixl97 1mo agoI think we as a species underestimated the power of the network effect and scaling. Most of humanity, especially the non technical wants to go where the people they know are. They also want it to be low friction, at least at first. Once they are there to get them to leave requires a lot of bad will by the site operators. Would things like open access actually push the dial any?
- convolvatron 1mo agoidk why Meta has to be the one to decide. I'm not suggesting that everyone carefully curate their own feed rules, but we could certainly choose to adopt packages from people and institutions that we trust, and be able to revisit those decision later. Meta is actually a horrible crime against humanity. They have immense power be being the gatekeeper of all information. They did it by intermediating themselves in the relationships we keep with our families, our friends, and the institutions that are close to use like schools and churches, and our communities in general. I agree with you that any alternative has to be equally as convenient. Idk that open access is in and of itself a solution, but at least would provide a bridge to having alternate solutions. If the alternative is just to cede control of my information input to Meta forever, I can't fault any effort to try.
- saghm 1mo agoYeah, I feel like the actual solution here should be regulating the companies that are allegedly causing the harm, not the victims of said harm. It says a lot about someone if they think the solution to "this giant powerful entity is taking advantage of you" is to restrict you they're than the giant powerful entity that's abusing its power.