-
The problem isn't whether or not Facebook should moderate political ads. That assumes a company their size is inherently ok: a behavior question. The question is if FB should be allowed to exist at its current size, at which mitigating its impact is fundamentally impossible.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 55 Retweets
❤️ 188 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
I'm not saying Facebook isn't responsible to do more, it should. But at a fundamental level it's too big to exist. Its main protection is that it has other 'competitors' and that it keeps prices low...Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 5 Retweets
❤️ 23 Favorites
Mood -1 🙁
-
Though notably the concept that monopolistic behavior is permissible if it keeps prices low is a pretty modern idea, and a bad one. And having other companies in the space does not mitigate it being a potential and viable target for antitrust.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 16 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
The question is if it is anticompetitive. And I'd argue the fact that its size makes it impossible for it not to meaningfully impact elections is fundamentally anticompetitive.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 18 Favorites
Mood 0
-
If you can 'oops accidentally' influence multiple world elections and your operation is too large to effectively act on a choice to do otherwise you are inherently deforming the marketplace, because politics sets the marketplace. Too big to moderate is too big to exist.On twitter.com
♻️ 15 Retweets
❤️ 45 Favorites
Mood +4 🙂
-
And what about Facebook inherently grants it this right to operate so unfettered? The argument is made for cos that provide vital utilities where break up would make citizens less able to live their lives. But does Facebook provide a service that we can't live without? No.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 6 Retweets
❤️ 20 Favorites
Mood 0
-
The argument has been made to nationalize Facebook. An option for sure. But at the end of the day we really can't claim FB is a utility. What makes it unique in operation... except its size? There were social networks of its type before & there will be again. We don't require FB.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 10 Favorites
Mood 0
-
At the end of the day, we live in capitalism. The questions of Facebook's behavior are best resolved not by the government attempting to regulate that behavior in some way (though that would be nice). It's best achieved by changing the shape and rules of the marketplace.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 14 Favorites
Mood +11 🙂
-
Or, alternatively we can kick off the revolution, eliminate money, tear down our current social structures and eliminate the concept of classes of people entirely, and become one world, build a replicator and ask Captain Picard to launch into space on the Enterprise.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 9 Favorites
Mood 0
-
I mean look, it's up to you, leverage the already existing antitrust regulatory system or eventually face down the revolution, because you see what's happening now? Historically speaking, that's how countries *end*.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 12 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Up to you citizens! As a Jewish ex-journalist technologist working for a media company I'm *checks notes* like probably third against the wall in either case.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 14 Favorites
Mood +2 🙂
-
PS if someone replies to this thread with some comment about free speech: you had free speech before Facebook & if the state of FB impacts your ability to exercise rights that's just another indication it's too big. Also it isn't even good at amplification anymore unless you pay.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 17 Favorites
Mood +7 🙂
-
At one point I thought the best solution was to teach individuals to be better, but honestly that ain't happening, we need a systems solution.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 14 Favorites
Mood +7 🙂