Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 104,712

                1. There's a real weird thing happening where we aren't acknowledging that Facebook is, at a fundamental level, a gatekeeper and its scale or digital status doesn't make it less of one. If that's the case than we should treat its gatekeeping as simply a gate...
                  Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 16 Favorites Mood -2 🙁
              1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                This is why I disagree so fundamentally with the whole 'oh well we can't break up Facebook' stance. It is the equivalent of saying that 'well NYT is the largest newspaper so it should just swallow up all the newspapers and then it will be easier to regulate'...,
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 7 Favorites Mood -2 🙁
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              Gatekeepers are better when there are more of them. Diffusing both choice and amplification is itself a regulation on bad behavior because it decreases the capability of actors to influence gov'ts and creates a competitive landscape...
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood +2 🙂
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            The idea that the largest possible version of an entity is the easiest to regulate has never proven out in history. Instead it is almost always the opposite. If we look at Facebook for what it is, a gatekeeper in front of the web, the problem reveals itself:
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood -2 🙁
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          Facebook has no real control. There is no council that will clear it of misinformation, or make it accountable, or keep it honest to gov't standards. Everything about it is abstracted from the greater web which means they, like all ad tech, are an impenetrable black box by design
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood +4 🙂
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        Facebook is to the web what the Goldman dark pools are to the market. A way to scrape money out of an existing system by trying to be the largest gatekeeper. If that's the model, there is no fix to make them amplify less bad things other than shrinking the size of the bullhorn.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -4 🙁
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      At the end of the day we can and should demand improvements of Facebook but there is no way to fix Facebook because the rest of the web is still out there, we can only decrease its power and decrease its amplification.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood -2 🙁
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    Anyway, it's why I hate the whole 'the web destroyed the gatekeepers and now the web is bad' take. It did destroy gatekeepers, but then we just erected a few even larger ones. The algorithm is gatekeeping, if it wasn't all these services would be in reverse chronological order
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood -9 🙁
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      If there's another argument against breaking up Facebook that doesn't pre-suppose 'the internet is Facebook now' then I'm open to hear it, but that isn't what I'm reading, especially not from Facebook itself.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood 0
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        Facebook doesn't need to be the web. But we have to break it up for that to occur, and we have to do more than that, we have to redefine how users operate across the actual web, so it isn't allowed to use its first party data transactionally among what would become Baby Facebooks
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood 0

Search tweets' text