[RD] Social Media Censorship and Regulation

[warpus]

If the regulations are "all organisations must provide a copy of all data held about an individual on request in a common format" and / or "all organisations must delete all data held about an individual on request" then I would be all for it. If the regulations are "facebook (but not CFC) must censor calls for regime change in the US, and must not censor calls for regime change in Iran" then this is where I would have a problem. It seems that we are talking about something more like the latter than the former.

Yeah, exactly. It's a private business, so it gets to make up its own rules, like this website we are posting on here. However, I am also not against websites having to adhere to certain standards of conduct and certain regulations, as that makes perfect sense.

 

[Cheetah]

The fundamental problem with "Facebook must be regulated!" as an answer to FAcebook censorship is that it's the governments censoring Facebook in the first place.

I'm not opposed to regulation (and some of those you list are smart, eg data ownership), but expecting government regulation of facebook to somehow prevent governments from getting people kicked off facebook (which is the initial problem discussed in this threat)...yeah, somehow it does not appear to be a solution.

If the regulations are "all organisations must provide a copy of all data held about an individual on request in a common format" and / or "all organisations must delete all data held about an individual on request" then I would be all for it. If the regulations are "facebook (but not CFC) must censor calls for regime change in the US, and must not censor calls for regime change in Iran" then this is where I would have a problem. It seems that we are talking about something more like the latter than the former.

Well, yes. My comments here are specifically quite off-topic. When it comes to government censorship, government-backed regulations aren't going to matter.

My points are really only on market regulation of the largest networks, to make sure that the market continues to work.

As for government censorship... That's a policy and voter issue, in democracies. Any company or individual must by necessity obey the rules and regulations of the government where they are hosted, even if that includes censorship. And in this case, there's not much to do until Facebook decides to be primarily located in another country, and also choose to disregard legal orders from the US and Israel.

Facebook and Twitter aren't monopolies though.

There's many other social media websites out there too. Where do you draw the line? And why would we only do this only with social media and no other types of websites? How do you even define what is social media and what isn't? There's too many problems with your idea, and what, just so that you can say what you want on facebook? You can already do that, just not where you want.

Utilities are a necessity, that's why they're treated differently. They're not a luxury, like facebook or twitter.

As I said, unless I check Facebook enough, I lose out in real life. Twitter is arguably not as important, but Facebook is important. Facebook is a de facto monopoly, and needs to be regulated.

As for the line, choose anything like "over a billion unique users", "three largest networks in unique users or activity or revenue", or "any network with more than 66% users/population in any given area". Do some studies as to which line would have the best effect, and fewest side effects, and choose that one.

 

[warpus]

As I said, unless I check Facebook enough, I lose out in real life.

That's your problem though, not the government's. You won't die, like you would if the heat was turned off in your apartment, or if you couldn't buy food at any grocery stores anymore for some reason. That's why those things are regulated in a special way - because they're necessities. Facebook isn't a necessity, it's a luxury.

It's not the government's job to ensure that your social life is doing well. Furthermore, there are people out there who's social lives revolve around different websites, other than facebook. Sites that might not necessarily be popular. Just because your particular social life revolves around facebook doesn't mean it's the government's job to regulate it.

Twitter is arguably not as important, but Facebook is important. Facebook is a de facto monopoly, and needs to be regulated.

It is regulated, like all other websites. The initial complaint was that you can't say whatever you want on facebook. How would being able to do that help with your social life?

 

[Cheetah]

That's your problem though, not the government's. You won't die, like you would if the heat was turned off in your apartment, or if you couldn't buy food at any grocery stores anymore for some reason. That's why those things are regulated in a special way - because they're necessities. Facebook isn't a necessity, it's a luxury.

It's not the government's job to ensure that your social life is doing well. Furthermore, there are people out there who's social lives revolve around different websites, other than facebook. Sites that might not necessarily be popular. Just because your particular social life revolves around facebook doesn't mean it's the government's job to regulate it.

You're not looking broadly enough at what a utility is.

Without electrical power, I could burn wood to keep warm. And that is precisely what many Greeks did when their financial troubles were at its worst. Made the air in many Greek cities quite terrible, I'm told. But it works for keeping warm. And without a grocery store, I could go fishing and grow potatoes, like my great grandfather did. Hell, we still have the field, just rented out to an actual farmer nowadays.

Electrical power, roads, water supply sewage, etc., are utilities not because we can't live without them, but because in practice it is impossible to make sure all/enough people get access to it without making special regulations for these markets.

Facebook is the same, in that it facilitates a lot of relationships and interactions which aren't true necessities, but still things that we think regular people need to have to have a good and proper life. And it is practically impossible to get the network to move to a new service. Therefore it should be regulated as a utility in some way.

It is regulated, like all other websites. The initial complaint was that you can't say whatever you want on facebook. How would being able to do that help with your social life?

As I wrote earlier, my arguments for regulation of Facebook doesn't really impact the government censorship angle.

 

[warpus]

Facebook is the same, in that it facilitates a lot of relationships and interactions which aren't true necessities, but still things that we think regular people need to have to have a good and proper life.

I totally disagree that Facebook is like that. Plenty of people have a "good and proper life" without facebook. You don't need it - you choose to use it. Sure, a lot of your friends use it too, but again, that's your problem, not the government's.

As for burning wood, I wouldn't be able to do that. If my electricity and heat shut off, and if the whole city I live in lost that too, a lot of people would die. Same if we couldn't buy food anywhere. Same if the roofs over our heads disappeared and we didn't have shelter anymore. If facebook suddenly disappeared, nobody would die, and nothing bad would happen. That's why it'll never be treated like a utility.

The only way this happens is if the government steps in and creates their own social network that people will have to sign up for. Hopefully we're all against something like that, though...

 

[Evie]

Depends on how you define a "good and proper life". Personally, I tend to agree with Cheetah ; it's getting increasingly hard to exist as a relevant entity (not in the sense of being important in the grand scheme of thing ; in the simple sense of existing socially) in modern society while avoiding social medias.

That some people can survive self-imposed social exile does not mean social exile is a good and proper life.

 

[warpus]

You don't need a specific company's take on social media to lead a healthy social life... It's hyperbole to suggest that those who don't need facebook to function are living "a self-imposed social exile". It's quite over the top

I get that facebook is a big part of a lot of people's lives. But it's just a platform built by a private company. Just because you've entwined a large part of your life into it doesn't mean you can push the government into the picture to start regulating stuff.

 

[metalhead]

I'd say that under the pretext that people should be allowed to say what they like, with a few very limited exceptions, in the public square. Facebook and Twitter (there may be others that are or will come to fall within this category, but I'll leave it at those two for now) play a huge part in people's lives, and that is only increasing. They are vital sources of information and interaction. They have become the public square, where people share ideas and express themselves. They have an effective monopoly on this; they are gatekeepers that control who can speak in the public square and what they can say. These private corporations, therefore, have immense power over people's speech, yet are regulated in the same way that a small site or blog is.

But unlike the public square, there is no way to self-censor. Contrary to popular belief, the public square is "censored" by community norms, by relationships, by the fact that people generally aren't going to say anything there which will lead to negative social consequences down the road. It's why protesting is an important activity - protests say things in the public square which otherwise would not be expressed there.

Online there are no such boundaries. There are no negative consequences to speech whatsoever. It's fundamentally different from the Platonic ideal of neighbors getting together and hashing out the issues of the day and of their lives. Free speech is not the same thing as speech without boundaries. I'm not sure that means that the companies running these platforms should arbitrarily remove content, but it does leave room, perhaps even an imperative, for some sort of boundaries.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think people will give up on using Facebook. It is too big, and has too strong capture of the market because of the network effect.

Accordingly, the free market rules surrounding Facebook have broken down, and regulation is necessary to protect and serve society. Thus, Facebook should be regulated -- it is a utility.

If anyone can argue that Facebook does not fit the description of an entrenched monopoly, I'd like to hear it. Personally, I don't want to use it, and have heavily reduced my time there. As such, I am very often missing out of social activities.

FB will fade away once it suffers enough hit to do some move like charging for actual non-directly commercial features. Eg charging you for having a page (as in a business or community page, etc). Other sites were huge in the past, and now are a note in the history of the web.

Furthermore, the issue with FB (other than its ridiculous name, of course ) is that it isn't supposed to be a serious site, but in the longer run opted to try to be respectable and serious, and now is openly taking orders from foreign govs (and the US). Imo the US is a problematic country to be tied to an international site in the first place. Canada would have been considerably better. And the web, while using sites and servers tied to countries, is not directly linked to any one country as a service.

 

[Katie88]

But unlike the public square, there is no way to self-censor. Contrary to popular belief, the public square is "censored" by community norms, by relationships, by the fact that people generally aren't going to say anything there which will lead to negative social consequences down the road. It's why protesting is an important activity - protests say things in the public square which otherwise would not be expressed there.

Online there are no such boundaries. There are no negative consequences to speech whatsoever. It's fundamentally different from the Platonic ideal of neighbors getting together and hashing out the issues of the day and of their lives. Free speech is not the same thing as speech without boundaries. I'm not sure that means that the companies running these platforms should arbitrarily remove content, but it does leave room, perhaps even an imperative, for some sort of boundaries.

People have certainly suffered real life consequences, losing their jobs, for example, over things they've said on social media, so I'm not sure that point holds true. I suppose one could argue that anonymity allows people to say what they otherwise wouldn't, due to social/political pressure, but then I'd say that some people have always written using a nom de plume; nor do I consider it a (necessarily) bad thing that people can write what they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Katie88]

Facebook and Twitter aren't monopolies though.

There's many other social media websites out there too. Where do you draw the line? And why would we only do this only with social media and no other types of websites? How do you even define what is social media and what isn't? There's too many problems with your idea, and what, just so that you can say what you want on facebook? You can already do that, just not where you want.

Why not? They have a dominant market position and are routinely talked about as monopolies.

I wouldn't necessarily restrict it just to social media; rather, I'd say that any site that dominates a particular segment and that is a major means of communication could fall into that category. Perhaps a case could be made for YouTube, which has just begun its own censorship programme in partnership with the ADL, to be included, for example.

Utilities are a necessity, that's why they're treated differently. They're not a luxury, like facebook or twitter.

As Cheetah pointed out, you're taking a very narrow view of what a utility is. Moreover, everything that you've described as a necessity here, running water, electric power, etc. started out as a luxury before becoming a necessity in people's lives. The question is whether social media has reached that point.

 

[BvBPL]

The internet is a utility.
Facebook is a common carrier.

 

[warpus]

are routinely talked about as monopolies.

This doesn't matter or mean anything. Donald Trump is routinely talked about as a moron, but he is actually a genius

I wouldn't necessarily restrict it just to social media; rather, I'd say that any site that dominates a particular segment and that is a major means of communication could fall into that category.

Expand that to "All ISPs and the internet as a whole" and I'll agree with you. Otherwise, no, there's no reason to give a particular social media platform government oversight, unless it was actually created by the government, or unless you're just talking about regular oversight that happens anyway (or should) with any sort of online entity.

 

[Katie88]

This doesn't matter or mean anything. Donald Trump is routinely talked about as a moron, but he is actually a genius

So their dominant market position and the facts that they described as monopolies is meaningless because people have different views on Donald Trump's intelligence. Come on.

Expand that to "All ISPs and the internet as a whole" and I'll agree with you. Otherwise, no, there's no reason to give a particular social media platform government oversight, unless it was actually created by the government, or unless you're just talking about regular oversight that happens anyway (or should) with any sort of online entity.

ISPs are regulated in some ways, as are the companies that provide the physical infrastructure, although doubtless a case could be made for changing and/or enhancing such regulation. The subject of this thread, however, is social media and, perhaps, other internet sites.

 

[warpus]

So their dominant market position and the facts that they described as monopolies

They are definitely not described as monopolies by anyone who knows what a monopoly is.

 

[timtofly]

I guess that depends on whether social media is a commodity. More specifically if it is a well traded commodity. Economics is a form of control, but so is social media. In fact Trump is the first President that has free reign within social media. Social media could be the newest economical mechanism in the control arsenal.

 

[warpus]

Well yes by all means, if facebook is deemed to have an unreasonable monopoly over some part of the market or other - break it up into pieces. That's what's usually done with monopolies who are too big for their own good, right?

When Microsoft was deemed to have an over-reaching control of their market, they were told to stop bundling internet explorer with windows.. and/or told to do other things in order to make the market more competitive. The U.S. government did not say: "Hmm wait, so many people use Windows, I guess we now have to now start treating it like a utility and help spread it even further"

 

[Evie]

Breaking it up in pieces is an utterly ineffective approach to social media, because what makes social media actually usable is precisely the concentration of users on a single social media. If you break one social media up, there will be a brief period of redivisions. Then another site is going to achieve critical mass because *that's where the people are* (and the point of social media is being in contact with people).

I'd say that social media tend very heavily toward something akin to a natural monopoly because (fundamentally), people are both the customer and the product. What you offer is (essentially) access to people, which in turn attracts more people, which in turns mean you are offering access to more people, which in turn attracts even more people, which (etc).

Breaking down monopolies in a natural monopoly situation is a highly ineffective approach (as the monopoly will usually naturally reform ; or else you'll replace one big global monopoly with a number of more "local" monopolies that have exactly as much power on the life of local customers). Extensive market regulation or, establishing utilities, are the effective answers to a situation like this.

 

[Samson]

Breaking it up in pieces is an utterly ineffective approach to social media, because what makes social media actually usable is precisely the concentration of users on a single social media. If you break one social media up, there will be a brief period of redivisions. Then another site is going to achieve critical mass because *that's where the people are* (and the point of social media is being in contact with people).

I'd say that social media tend very heavily toward something akin to a natural monopoly because (fundamentally), people are both the customer and the product. What you offer is (essentially) access to people, which in turn attracts more people, which in turns mean you are offering access to more people, which in turn attracts even more people, which (etc).

Breaking down monopolies in a natural monopoly situation is a highly ineffective approach (as the monopoly will usually naturally reform ; or else you'll replace one big global monopoly with a number of more "local" monopolies that have exactly as much power on the life of local customers). Extensive market regulation or, establishing utilities, are the effective answers to a situation like this.

It does not seem impossible to me. If some sort of common API was enforced, such that any platform (such as Diaspora) can interface with any other platform (like facebook) and read the relevant content for an individual or network the whole ecosystem could operate on a much more competitive basis and still maintain peoples connections. I cannot see it happening, but it has to be possible.

 

[metalhead]

All of this talk makes me wonder if a large part of our current political climate, both locally and globally, isn't just mankind adapting to the new reality of social media.