tw.tter

[plodder]

We arent plagued by rogue bookshops, are we?

No. Apart from the Christian Science Reading Rooms, anyway.

But if you want to deal with rogue social networks, you need to understand what your proposals do to non-rogue networks and internet services, and how they can and can't be implemented under the rule of law without massive suppressing free speech and enabling government oppression.

Proposal #1 break up the big internet firms. Might as well throw google and amazon into the mix
Proposal #2 watch as the new ecosystem develops
Proposal #3 consider whether the existing rules are sufficient or need tweaking.

Alternatively, treat the big internet firms as publishers. Thresholds etc tbc.

[dyqik]

We arent plagued by rogue bookshops, are we?

No. Apart from the Christian Science Reading Rooms, anyway.

But if you want to deal with rogue social networks, you need to understand what your proposals do to non-rogue networks and internet services, and how they can and can't be implemented under the rule of law without massive suppressing free speech and enabling government oppression.

Proposal #1 break up the big internet firms. Might as well throw google and amazon into the mix
Proposal #2 watch as the new ecosystem develops
Proposal #3 consider whether the existing rules are sufficient or need tweaking.

Alternatively, treat the big internet firms as publishers. Thresholds etc tbc.

Thresholds are certainly a plausible method for working out which services need more oversight. As are GPDR type systems which restrict how algorithms can work.

That said, Twitter will barely meet reasonable thresholds in many countries. Its power is more to do with the number of journalists using it, which has led to a large number of politicians using it. Twitter drives less than 7% of online engagement with news etc., with the overwhelming majority coming from Facebook. You could fix many of the problems with Twitter just by journalists choosing to use a wider variety of services.

[plodder]

I love this idea that a single firm driving 7% of engagement with global online news is just a bit player that we shouldn’t worry about too much.

[dyqik]

I love this idea that a single firm driving 7% of engagement with global online news is just a bit player that we shouldn’t worry about too much.

Facebook is closer to 70% on this metric

This isn't "engagement with global news", though. It's engagement with online global news via tracked click through from other services.

Going directly to news.bbc.co.uk, or installing the Guardian app is not included in the denominator here.

[plodder]

I love this idea that a single firm driving 7% of engagement with global online news is just a bit player that we shouldn’t worry about too much.

Facebook is closer to 70% on this metric

This isn't "engagement with global news", though. It's engagement with online global news via tracked click through from other services.

Going directly to news.bbc.co.uk, or installing the Guardian app is not included in the denominator here.

That is still a colossal amount of influence. The media barons of the print era had nothing on these guys.

[EACLucifer]

We arent plagued by rogue bookshops, are we?

No. Apart from the Christian Science Reading Rooms, anyway.

But if you want to deal with rogue social networks, you need to understand what your proposals do to non-rogue networks and internet services, and how they can and can't be implemented under the rule of law without massive suppressing free speech and enabling government oppression.

This.

I'm not adverse to the idea that firms using algorithms to promote material that end up promoting extremism should be expected to change their systems to not do that. Many of course want to already, as nobody wants to advertise inbetween posts filled with racial slurs or calls to decapitate the polytheists and sorcerers of western Somerset or wherever.

My objection is to proposals that will hit enormous parts of the legitimate internet - all forums, discussion groups, hosting sites, email and so on.

It doesn't matter how righteous you are, or how appalling your enemies. You still have to think about the consequences of how you do things.

[dyqik]

I love this idea that a single firm driving 7% of engagement with global online news is just a bit player that we shouldn’t worry about too much.

Facebook is closer to 70% on this metric

This isn't "engagement with global news", though. It's engagement with online global news via tracked click through from other services.

Going directly to news.bbc.co.uk, or installing the Guardian app is not included in the denominator here.

That is still a colossal amount of influence. The media barons of the print era had nothing on these guys.

Murdoch still has more influence in the English speaking world though.

[plodder]

I’d be interested to see you demonstrate that, especially if you broaden your horizons to “the global conversation”. Similarly can you find an equivalent for eg Cambridge Analytica in the Murdoch press?

[plodder]

We arent plagued by rogue bookshops, are we?

No. Apart from the Christian Science Reading Rooms, anyway.

But if you want to deal with rogue social networks, you need to understand what your proposals do to non-rogue networks and internet services, and how they can and can't be implemented under the rule of law without massive suppressing free speech and enabling government oppression.

This.

I'm not adverse to the idea that firms using algorithms to promote material that end up promoting extremism should be expected to change their systems to not do that. Many of course want to already, as nobody wants to advertise inbetween posts filled with racial slurs or calls to decapitate the polytheists and sorcerers of western Somerset or wherever.

My objection is to proposals that will hit enormous parts of the legitimate internet - all forums, discussion groups, hosting sites, email and so on.

It doesn't matter how righteous you are, or how appalling your enemies. You still have to think about the consequences of how you do things.

Good job no one is making them then. You are not a serious person, go and practice your bombard if you want to annoy someone.

[EACLucifer]

No. Apart from the Christian Science Reading Rooms, anyway.

But if you want to deal with rogue social networks, you need to understand what your proposals do to non-rogue networks and internet services, and how they can and can't be implemented under the rule of law without massive suppressing free speech and enabling government oppression.

This.

I'm not adverse to the idea that firms using algorithms to promote material that end up promoting extremism should be expected to change their systems to not do that. Many of course want to already, as nobody wants to advertise inbetween posts filled with racial slurs or calls to decapitate the polytheists and sorcerers of western Somerset or wherever.

My objection is to proposals that will hit enormous parts of the legitimate internet - all forums, discussion groups, hosting sites, email and so on.

It doesn't matter how righteous you are, or how appalling your enemies. You still have to think about the consequences of how you do things.

Good job no one is making them then. You are not a serious person, go and practice your bombard if you want to annoy someone.

We can add to that people too thick to understand the implications of what they are advocating

[Bird on a Fire]

I’d be interested to see you demonstrate that, especially if you broaden your horizons to “the global conversation”. Similarly can you find an equivalent for eg Cambridge Analytica in the Murdoch press?

Gotta say I'm mildly surprised by your apparent lack of interest in the fact that what you propose basically already exists.

There would be all kinds of problems if email were a single private company. The solution is an open interface that various players, some for profit, others not, can use to interact with their own offerings. Something equivalent, decentralised and therefore robust to various shenanigans and monopolies, is currently growing fast in the world of social media.

[plodder]

I use mastodon if that’s what you mean. Billions of people don’t though, so the internet is still being ruined by a handful of monopolies sucking the air out of all the available space.

[Millennie Al]

Proposal #1 break up the big internet firms. Might as well throw google and amazon into the mix
Proposal #2 watch as the new ecosystem develops
Proposal #3 consider whether the existing rules are sufficient or need tweaking.

Those seem more like stages of a proposal than separate proposal.

However, creation is much harder than destruction. Any idiot can destroy something of value, but creating something better is very hard. Just because you can see flaws in the status quo and none in your imagination does not mean that all change is an improvement.

[plodder]

Proposal #1 break up the big internet firms. Might as well throw google and amazon into the mix
Proposal #2 watch as the new ecosystem develops
Proposal #3 consider whether the existing rules are sufficient or need tweaking.

Those seem more like stages of a proposal than separate proposal.

However, creation is much harder than destruction. Any idiot can destroy something of value, but creating something better is very hard. Just because you can see flaws in the status quo and none in your imagination does not mean that all change is an improvement.

You do appreciate that competition will drive whatever improvements people want, and that this would probably be better than me imagining something? Why is splitting up a monopoly destruction?

[Woodchopper]

Proposal #1 break up the big internet firms. Might as well throw google and amazon into the mix
Proposal #2 watch as the new ecosystem develops
Proposal #3 consider whether the existing rules are sufficient or need tweaking.

Those seem more like stages of a proposal than separate proposal.

However, creation is much harder than destruction. Any idiot can destroy something of value, but creating something better is very hard. Just because you can see flaws in the status quo and none in your imagination does not mean that all change is an improvement.

You do appreciate that competition will drive whatever improvements people want, and that this would probably be better than me imagining something? Why is splitting up a monopoly destruction?

There are things known as ‘natural’ monopolies’ or oligopolies. They exist when consumers get benefits from a product or service and splitting up the monopoly or oligopoly would significantly reduce quality or increase price.

The national electricity grid is a classic example of a natural monopoly. It’s necessary to move power around the country so for example in the UK separate regional grids wouldn’t make sense. Building duplicate power lines across the country would introduce competition but would be very costly. So instead governments either own or heavily regulate national grids.

A social media platform could be similar. If it’s assumed that the main benefit for consumers is from a wide network which allows communication among diverse people then the platforms could be a natural oligopoly.

You’ve mentioned splitting up the social media companies and having them be able to share data like an RSS feed. But as mentioned IMHO it’s going to be difficult to find a way to avoid either: a) reducing the value of the network to users because they have reduced access to other network members; or b) that the breakup is just a legal fiction and the platform remains.

Before people mention Mastodon see my earlier post. Just in my personal experience the lack of a keyword search means that it’s not as useful when compared to Reddit or Twitter. Of course others will differ.

An alternative would be to allow the existing platforms but heavily regulate them. But that brings its own problems, especially how to coordinate regulations across several jurisdictions and how to know how proprietary algorithms function.

I really don’t know the answer. Just seems to me that the issues are complicated.

[plodder]

They are mainly complex but taking a half step back would you agree that Meta and Alphabet could be broken up mainly to everyone’s benefit?

[Woodchopper]

It seems like Alphabet and Meta could be broken up into separate business units focusing upon different products. Instagram doesn’t seem to need to be run by the same company as Facebook (happy for someone to argue differently). Alphabet isn’t running a popular social network.

But if you’re worried about the societal effects of social media I’m not sure that’s a solution. The platforms remain and increased competition might mean even more ruthless exploitation of their customers.

[jimbob]

It seems like Alphabet and Meta could be broken up into separate business units focusing upon different products. Instagram doesn’t seem to need to be run by the same company as Facebook (happy for someone to argue differently). Alphabet isn’t running a popular social network.

But if you’re worried about the societal effects of social media I’m not sure that’s a solution. The platforms remain and increased competition might mean even more ruthless exploitation of their customers.

Bolded for the snark.

Doesn't *everyone* use Google+

?

[plodder]

YouTube is very popular

[Woodchopper]

YouTube is very popular

Good point. I don’t use it for that purpose but I guess it is one.

[dyqik]

Before people mention Mastodon see my earlier post. Just in my personal experience the lack of a keyword search means that it’s not as useful when compared to Reddit or Twitter. Of course others will differ.

The lack of keyword search on Mastodon is a deliberate design decision to prevent abusive behaviors that have caused serious damage on other social networks. E.g. bots promoting crypto spamming mentions of certain words, TERFs posting abuse and reporting any positive mention of transgender treatment, etc. etc. This is also why quote posting isn't a thing.

Hashtags are the method of searching on Mastodon. What this does is allow the poster control over whether what they post is searchable (include a hash tag) or not (don't).

One of the underlying principles of Mastodon that differs from commercial social networks is that serious consideration is given to consent over how posts are used by others.

[dyqik]

Elon did some more constructive dismissal overnight, demanding work hours in excess of the EU working time directive with two days notice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... rmination/

Also from that:

A large portion of the most-followed accounts that got “verified” via Twitter Blue, according to the data reviewed by The Post, are from a few specific subcommunities on Twitter: p.rnography, cryptocurrency advocates and overseas accounts, particularly from the Middle East.

[EACLucifer]

"The consent decree was made under duress. An agreement made under duress, is not valid, as a foundation of law"

Musk, referring to an SEC consent decree at this point, but worth noting that Twitter is under an FTC consent decree and Musk's almost certainly broken it repeatedly and flagrantly.

He clearly has a lot to learn about the concept of government and regulatory bodies.

I sincerely hopes he crashes and burns - much as his cars like to - and it hurts his backers, who include some deeply unpleasant people, too. I just hope the damage to the various communities on twitter is as little as possible.

Mastodon might work fine for various nerds - no offence to the various nerds here - but it cannot easily substitute for twitter among the established twitter communities.

[dyqik]

Mastodon might work fine for various nerds - no offence to the various nerds here - but it cannot easily substitute for twitter among the established twitter communities.

People keep saying that, but it's where communities that were driven off Twitter by abuse ended up, well before this all started.

If anything, it works better for communities that aren't the mainstream, because it isn't a system designed to maximize advertiser return by boosting the mainstream.

[Bird on a Fire]

So far, other than a slightly different sign-up procedure (that maybe could be more intuitive for newbies, or else will soon be normalised) masto seems a very similar user experience to tw.tter. Fewer users at the mo, but plenty of good ones.

I guess there'd be nothing stopping some servers having some kind of log to enable plain-text search, that could even be federalised amongst consenting servers, even if it needed some kind of upgrade. It's foss so wevs.

Can't say I personally considered text search a key feature of twitter, but can see why it would be useful. Culturomics researchers would miss out too.