Should social media be nationalized?

[BobTheCoward]

If you were talking about a country like North Korea or Yemen, then yes, I'd believe the possibility of that type of logistical scenario happening.

In this particular case however.... nuh uh.

Feasibility seems like a separate question.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Feasibility seems like a separate question.

Really ?

Because I see 'feasibility' as an important part of the equation with my original request for a detailed plan of implementation.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching a Rambo movie scene as much as the next guy, but....

 

[BobTheCoward]

Really ?

Because I see 'feasibility' as an important part of the equation with my original request for a detailed plan of implementation.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching a Rambo movie scene as much as the next guy, but....

Really

 

[Travis]

Here's a novel idea, how about not getting your news from Facebook, then it wouldn't matter who was banned and who wasn't.

Patronizing won't work here. It is simply too easy for so many people, especially those that cut the cord, to open their app on their phone and rely on it to let them know what is going on in the world.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Really

Okay. I'll bite.

How could a Rambo military scene stop Facebook and Twitter from operating their social media platforms elsewhere and around the world ?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay. I'll bite.

How could a Rambo military scene stop Facebook and Twitter from operating their social media platforms elsewhere and around the world ?

Because they are centralized organizations. 3/5ths of Facebook's people work at menlo park. The direction on what changes to be made come from there. Plus, the people who sign the checks are there. The other two fifths, if they chose to go rogue, might find other hobbies when the pay stops.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Because they are centralized organizations. 3/5ths of Facebook's people work at menlo park. The direction on what changes to be made come from there. Plus, the people who sign the checks are there. The other two fifths, if they chose to go rogue, might find other hobbies when the pay stops.

Companies like Facebook and Twitter could incorporate themselves in some other foreign country, relocate their data operations to new servers in said new location, and *poof* they're internet-based businesses carry on without so much as a hiccup.

No longer falling under US regulation.

The only thing your military scenario would accomplish would be to put a bunch of americans workers out of a job.... while gifting all those same jobs to a bunch of people in some foreign country like Taiwan or something.

Facebook and Twitter don't need to be specifically located in the US (brick and mortar) to operate their internet-based platforms.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Land the 101st airborne on the Facebook campus and the 82nd at alphabet. Take all employees hostage mid day. At gun point direct them to transfer all assets over to the officers.

And if they refuse, shoot them!

 

[Bob001]

One of Facebook's earliest investors assesses the problem and recommends solutions:

Increasing awareness of the threat posed by platform monopolies creates an opportunity to reframe the discussion about concentration of market power. Limiting the power of Facebook and Google not only won’t harm America, it will almost certainly unleash levels of creativity and innovation that have not been seen in the technology industry since the early days of, well, Facebook and Google.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magaz...-2018/how-to-fix-facebook-before-it-fixes-us/

 

[Planigale]

China doesn't have a bill of rights.
The Atlantic Council and similar Machiavellian think tanks (Matt Taibbi described them as the current "government in exile" since Trump won and brought in a new policy crew) are now being given the task of moderating facebook, so it's like the worst element of government doing it, but users/citizens have no "free speech" arguments to make, because it's a private company "choosing" to outsource it to technically non-governmental organizations.

eta: link to excellent Taibbi interview on the subject:
https://therealnews.com/stories/facebook-google-play-the-censor-are-our-civil-liberties-endangered



I highly suggest reading or watching the whole interview.

China does have a constitution guaranteeing certain rights;
E.g. Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration."

It is the USA that refuses to recognise human rights. China is a signatory to many human rights conventions e.g. the UN rights of the child that the US is not a signatory to. It its worth remembering the US kidnaps people abroad, tortures them and locks them up in secret prisons denying them access to lawyers and a free and fair trial.

In practice US citizens in the US today may be freer than Chinese citizens in China but it is wrong to say China has no 'bill of rights'. It is worth remembering how much protection the bill of rights gave to a black man in e.g. Alabama when it came into force before citing it as an example of excellence in human rights.

 

[uke2se]

We're talking about something far different to if certain games or game play options are available in a specific country.

We're talking about how a social media platform should be run, and how it should be allowed to determine whether a person should be prevented from saying something, or even having access to the platform itself.

How would having individual countries making up these rules for their own country even work? Would Facebook have to ban someone who is in Britain for violating their Hate speech laws, but allow someone from the US to say the exact same thing without punishment? How fair is that?

You run into the same issues if the platforms are regulated by the laws of the country that they are hosted in. Just take this forum for example. It was originally created in the US, it has Head Admin from the UK, and I believe that its server is currently located in Sweden. What rules does it have to follow? If a platform was hosted in China, then should US citizens on it have to obey China's laws on speech? How about what happens when the company is in head-quartered in one country, but has its platform on servers that are hosting it worldwide. What about companies that have multiple HQs and servers worldwide?

This isn't really such an easy question to answer is it?

It's kind of easy. Either Facebook bans the person, fixes the platform so that person's posts can be banned from view in the UK, or they cease doing business in the UK.

 

[kellyb]

One of Facebook's earliest investors assesses the problem and recommends solutions:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magaz...-2018/how-to-fix-facebook-before-it-fixes-us/

That's a great article!

 

[kellyb]

China does have a constitution guaranteeing certain rights;
E.g. Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration."

It is the USA that refuses to recognise human rights. China is a signatory to many human rights conventions e.g. the UN rights of the child that the US is not a signatory to. It its worth remembering the US kidnaps people abroad, tortures them and locks them up in secret prisons denying them access to lawyers and a free and fair trial.

In practice US citizens in the US today may be freer than Chinese citizens in China but it is wrong to say China has no 'bill of rights'. It is worth remembering how much protection the bill of rights gave to a black man in e.g. Alabama when it came into force before citing it as an example of excellence in human rights.

I did not know about China's bill of rights.

All very good points you make there.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If you do either, folks will stampede to the black-market, underground version.

I know, because I will be one of the stampede, possibly leading the way or even setting up the underground version.

Users don't care, and advertisers stay where the users are.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Companies like Facebook and Twitter could incorporate themselves in some other foreign country, relocate their data operations to new servers in said new location, and *poof* they're internet-based businesses carry on without so much as a hiccup.

No longer falling under US regulation.

The only thing your military scenario would accomplish would be to put a bunch of americans workers out of a job.... while gifting all those same jobs to a bunch of people in some foreign country like Taiwan or something.

Facebook and Twitter don't need to be specifically located in the US (brick and mortar) to operate their internet-based platforms.

Facebook isn't the server or where it is located. It is the fundamental decisions made by members of that company especially senior leadership.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's kind of easy. Either Facebook bans the person, fixes the platform so that person's posts can be banned from view in the UK, or they cease doing business in the UK.

You think that the UK Government violating the rights of a US Citizen is an appropriate solution?

 

[uke2se]

You think that the UK Government violating the rights of a US Citizen is an appropriate solution?

I don't think a US citizen can expect to have the same rights in the UK as in the US.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Here's a novel idea, how about not getting your news from Facebook, then it wouldn't matter who was banned and who wasn't.

It does seem like Facebook is getting blamed for failing at being something it was never meant to be, intended to be, or presented/advertised itself as... a primary news site.

 

[Belz...]

So?

Vimeo will still host most of what Youtube will, minus the extremes like Alex Jones.

Give him time.

Besides, the point is that you have the choice between a giant with an enormous amount of content or far smaller and less useful competitors. That's the problem.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I'd love to hear someone explain the logistics on just how, exactly, any one singular country could "nationalize" (read: regulate, restrict, and dictate) the rest of the planet's social media usage.

Someone in Trump's camp care to step up onto their soapbox and lay it all out for the rest of us ?

If you're talking about a specific social media platform, like Facebook or Twitter, it would be easy and obvious. There should be no need for a Trump supporter to have to explain it to you.

If you're talking about social media in general the question hardly makes sense.

Poor fodder for discussion either way.