Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/01/06/monopoly-is-speech-policy.html
…
4 Likes
When this experiment began, there was significant attention paid to abuse of power by government and church. Not so much private for profit corporation’s. And so thats exactly the threat vector we are most bothered by now.
We need to do to private corporations what was done to the monarchy back then. If that’s even possible any more…
11 Likes
The idea was that the invisible hand (market forces) would drive out bad actors because people would decline to use services or buy products that abused them.
Turns out that the markets are really only good at measuring money. You can’t trade on ethics.
9 Likes
I think it’s breaking them up and forcing them to allow interoperability, so that their speech rules no longer dictate what kind of discourse we’re allowed to have
What does that mean in practical terms? If Twitter or Facebook wants to kick off Alex Jones, what is the practical result in a system with mandated “interoperability?”
Freedom of expression is a good, but it’s not the only good. The more urgent problem right now is what certain people can say (and how loudly they can say it), not what people can’t say.
It doesn’t matter if there’s one Facebook or a thousand; as long as you sell 100% of your attention to an unregulated ad marketplace, it’s going to be cheap and easy for a Putin or Murdoch to program you with whatever reality suits them. It’s not hard to find countervailing narratives if you want to – and it’s only getting easier AFAIK – but if you only look at media whose mission is to drive you slightly insane and keep you there, they’re not going to feed you those healthy viewpoints.
What we need is trustworthy editors. Facebook can’t ever be that. We need Facebook to die but more relevantly, we need public fora that don’t answer to advertisers.
6 Likes
probably the best description of engagement maximization that I’ve seen
If you are referring to the beginning of the US experiment, there was a lot of attention paid to preventing abuse of private financial power. Its just that the restrictions have since been removed. Originally corporate charters automatically expired after a few years and a corporation had to justify how it contributed to the public good to get an extension
7 Likes
Ironic that Cory published this with no problems on his own private soapbox web site. How is he being censored? Never before has it been so cheap and easy to publish what you want to say to the entire world.
1 Like
Perhaps so, but BoingBoing simply does not have the reach or power of a monopolistic company like Facebook, of course. That’s pretty much the point here.
2 Likes
The ability for anyone on Earth to read your content is literally one mouse-click away. How much more reach do you expect? Should every flat-earther have government support to broadcast whatever they are pushing into your life? If you have a message with resonance, people will pass it around to their friends with the messaging app of their choice. I’m not trolling you, I honestly don’t see how it could be any more frictionless to publish a manifesto these days.
Excuse me? Just because anyone can access the site, doesn’t mean they will. Facebook has billions of users; BoingBoing does not. And therin lies power that they USE.
2 Likes
6 Likes
I’m not sure you understand the 1st Amendment. The amendment was to limit the power of government, not some service you decide to use. So the government can’t put you in jail because of something you said, but that does not mean a service cannot ban you from their platform because you disobeyed their terms of service. You think that anything you type is public, when, in fact, it’s only public to people who subscribe to the service. I don’t see your Facebook posts because I’m not on Facebook. Facebook is not a government service and is not constrained by the 1st amendment, which applies to government, not companies.
I so want to agree with you on principle, but I can’t, because the constitution applies to government, not companies. If a newspaper declines to post an editorial that you wrote, that is not infringing on your 1st amendment rights. Same argument here.
So stop using Facebook. Tell your friends and family you are no longer on Facebook because you don’t agree with the company platform. Stop confusing private/publicly owned companies with government. If Facebook were government run it would be 3-4 days before your posts appear on your timeline.
This is what the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding the 1st amendment. Show me where it limits a news aggregator/newspaper/social network.
You might want a new ruling, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Reality is imploding. This post is currently linked on the top left of the Drudge Report.
The next link below? Trump touts Zuckerberg. That’s encouraging for anyone who hopes to prevent what’s discussed here. There’s never collusion between big money and politicians!
Mod Note: Lets try and keep things on the topic of the post, and not about individual posters, please.
3 Likes
I don’t use Facebook, and my family and friends know why.
OK, thanks, to moderators, you have made my point clear. Moderators are not unconstitutional. There is no need for government to intervene. Yet, my comments keep getting moderated out. Thanks for that. You are within your rights boing boing. I’d like to keep it that way, that is not sarcasm. This is your site. That is my whole point.
Um…
It’s not censorship.
By joining this site in order to make a comment, you agreed to the site’s terms and conditions and CoC; regardless to whether you bothered to actually read what it was that you were agreeing to, or not.
You may want to give the FAQ a good perusal if you plan to stick around.
Oh, and one more thing:
Do enjoy your stay.
8 Likes
@Melz2 is correct in that this isn’t censorship… abide by the terms of service, and all will be peachy.
5 Likes
