6 ms·

I don't see how having national backed social media platforms to the likes china does is a better alternative for end users compared to facebook. If you are a

by fx32s 6y ago

I don't see how having national backed social media platforms to the likes china does is a better alternative for end users compared to facebook. If you are a proponent for open speech this will accomplish the opposite since it simplifies state issued censorship. I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't bring value to a significant share of people.

praptak 6y ago
If it's something like BBC then I still prefer it to a private monopoly. BBC is technically national but at the same time pretty independent in its reporting.
- rpastuszak 6y ago
  As an outsider who has spent the past 7 years in the UK, I feel like the definition of “pretty independent” has become a bit more fluid. But yeah, it’d be nice if my taxes were spent on the problems we’re discussing here, rather than giving people access to cheaper Tim Tams.
- gmac 6y ago
  I'd challenge that assumption. The BBC has arguably become much more of a state broadcaster than a public interest broadcaster in recent decades. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/can-t-afford-to-tell-the-truth https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/c...
deathgrips 6y ago
It's a trade off. Do you want to risk being censored by your own country or risk being censored by San Francisco?
- input_sh 6y ago
  Can I democratically elect who will represent me in a Silicon Valley company? If not, I'm going to choose my own country. I am aware that citizens of more repressive governments might not make the same choice.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    What choice? Repressive governments typically have minimal difficulty getting Silicon Valley to repress their subjects on their behalf.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Because of both the electoral college and two Senator per state. If you live in a more populous state, your vote is worth a lot less than someone in Middle of Nowhere Nebraska. Passing laws is fine as long as your side is in power to enforce them the way that you like.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  What's the difference to being censored by a company that has no obligations towards me?
BraveSnoo1028 6y ago
> I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't bring value to a significant share of people. You don't think other sites can provide the same kind of value, while being far more respectful of your privacy and better reflecting the values of a country's culture? I sure as hell would prefer a German Facebook rather than the Facebook we have now that drowns out all other alternatives while allowing hate speech to spread unabated and trampling all over my right to privacy and to control my data. It's not even the fact that an alternative needs to be state-backed. It would be enough for a government to ban Facebook to allow local alternatives to grow a user base.
- fx32s 6y ago
  I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would want to switch however I think once these platforms grow they would hit similar problems: * To operate in multiple countries so people can stay connected you have to abide by local laws even if they don't match the typical values. * Social media is inherently winner-takes all due to the requirement of critical mass and connectedness. The winners have shifted over time (myspace) before but it seems harder to do than with other consumer services. * Moderation of billions is a hard unsolved problem and is a game you can't win. You walk the tight rope of either allowing hate speech or being too overreaching in censoring. I'm not sure other startups will solve this any better. * I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition, especially not for services where the people themselves choose to use it or not. Some share of people like using facebook and I don't feel banning them for the sake of their success is the right solution. While I'm from europe myself I feel over-regulating is one (among many) of the reasons why there are almost no dominant tech players here. * Monetisation and use of user data. While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice. The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms compared to smaller players where the likelihood of privacy incidents is arguably higher.
  - 6y ago

by fx32s 6y ago

praptak 6y ago

If it's something like BBC then I still prefer it to a private monopoly. BBC is technically national but at the same time pretty independent in its reporting.

rpastuszak 6y ago
As an outsider who has spent the past 7 years in the UK, I feel like the definition of “pretty independent” has become a bit more fluid. But yeah, it’d be nice if my taxes were spent on the problems we’re discussing here, rather than giving people access to cheaper Tim Tams.
gmac 6y ago
I'd challenge that assumption. The BBC has arguably become much more of a state broadcaster than a public interest broadcaster in recent decades. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/can-t-afford-to-tell-the-truth https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n24/owen-bennett-jones/c...

deathgrips 6y ago

It's a trade off. Do you want to risk being censored by your own country or risk being censored by San Francisco?

input_sh 6y ago
Can I democratically elect who will represent me in a Silicon Valley company? If not, I'm going to choose my own country. I am aware that citizens of more repressive governments might not make the same choice.
- throwanem 6y ago
  What choice? Repressive governments typically have minimal difficulty getting Silicon Valley to repress their subjects on their behalf.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Because of both the electoral college and two Senator per state. If you live in a more populous state, your vote is worth a lot less than someone in Middle of Nowhere Nebraska. Passing laws is fine as long as your side is in power to enforce them the way that you like.
Kaze404 6y ago
What's the difference to being censored by a company that has no obligations towards me?

BraveSnoo1028 6y ago

> I understand that bashing on facebook is a popular narrative here and they have made significant mistakes but it can hardly be argued the platform doesn't bring value to a significant share of people. You don't think other sites can provide the same kind of value, while being far more respectful of your privacy and better reflecting the values of a country's culture? I sure as hell would prefer a German Facebook rather than the Facebook we have now that drowns out all other alternatives while allowing hate speech to spread unabated and trampling all over my right to privacy and to control my data. It's not even the fact that an alternative needs to be state-backed. It would be enough for a government to ban Facebook to allow local alternatives to grow a user base.

fx32s 6y ago
I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos), open and privacy first alternative would exist they would want to switch however I think once these platforms grow they would hit similar problems: * To operate in multiple countries so people can stay connected you have to abide by local laws even if they don't match the typical values. * Social media is inherently winner-takes all due to the requirement of critical mass and connectedness. The winners have shifted over time (myspace) before but it seems harder to do than with other consumer services. * Moderation of billions is a hard unsolved problem and is a game you can't win. You walk the tight rope of either allowing hate speech or being too overreaching in censoring. I'm not sure other startups will solve this any better. * I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition, especially not for services where the people themselves choose to use it or not. Some share of people like using facebook and I don't feel banning them for the sake of their success is the right solution. While I'm from europe myself I feel over-regulating is one (among many) of the reasons why there are almost no dominant tech players here. * Monetisation and use of user data. While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice. The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms compared to smaller players where the likelihood of privacy incidents is arguably higher.
- 6y ago