Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Should facebook be regulated?

FungusOfHam
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
HairlessApe
Posts: 245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2018 6:51:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.

Didn't you ruin your premise by noting that MySpace had control of the market until FaceBook came along?

I think, before we talk about regulating FB we ought to determine if FB is something like a utility that people can't do without or if it's just a recreation.
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
Greyparrot
Posts: 21,952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2018 6:52:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 6:51:25 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.

Didn't you ruin your premise by noting that MySpace had control of the market until FaceBook came along?

I think, before we talk about regulating FB we ought to determine if FB is something like a utility that people can't do without or if it's just a recreation.

Sure let's privatize all public forums. I like your style.
The extinction of the species is worse than the extinction of the nation, which is worse than the extinction of the tribe, which is worse than the extinction of the family, which is worse than the extinction of the individual. The second he reverses that list of priorities, he becomes a coward, and would be summarily disposed of by any civilized society that values its own survival.
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2018 9:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

You know you"re full of sh*t. We know you"re full of sh*t.

Can you please stop posting with the pretext that you"re not full of sh*t?

It will save everyone a lot of time.
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2018 11:12:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

So a second amendment wonk wants to ignore the first amendment......

It's a private business, they can say, censor, delete what they like.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 2:57:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 6:51:25 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.

Didn't you ruin your premise by noting that MySpace had control of the market until FaceBook came along?

Not at all, as the market occupied by MySpace wasn't saturated in the least, hence why Facebook has since far outstripped them in users. The problem with breaking into a market occupied by Facebook is that there's a finite number of people online and so many of them use the platform that there's no room for an alternative to grow. When Myspace was at its prime the market was still wide open. Market saturation is a central mechanic.

I think, before we talk about regulating FB we ought to determine if FB is something like a utility that people can't do without or if it's just a recreation.

That's irrelevant to the issue of free speech, imo. We have laws about free speech because it is seen as immensely harmful for an idea to be barred from discussion by the populace, so a free public forum is guaranteed by law. If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected. Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 3:38:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected....

Erm... no. You see, a private space is controlled by a specific person on personal property of some variety. Its why people can make blogs but disable reader commentary. Its why Youtube content creators can disable viewer commentary. No, free speech doesn't need to be 'protected' once it shifts to private spaces.

Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.

Subsequent applications on servers and cyber 'forums' were upheld as being subject to the rules of the owner. It seems as though the law doesn't favor restricting access to free speech where in there is no expectation of privacy. A public sidewalk seems to fit the bill for that, as said company town invited traffic.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 4:05:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 3:38:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected....

Erm... no. You see, a private space is controlled by a specific person on personal property of some variety. Its why people can make blogs but disable reader commentary. Its why Youtube content creators can disable viewer commentary. No, free speech doesn't need to be 'protected' once it shifts to private spaces.

I wasn't speaking about the application of US law, but of the central idea behind free speech that inspired the 1st amendment.

Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.

Subsequent applications on servers and cyber 'forums' were upheld as being subject to the rules of the owner. It seems as though the law doesn't favor restricting access to free speech where in there is no expectation of privacy. A public sidewalk seems to fit the bill for that, as said company town invited traffic.

What the law favors depends entirely on the justices ruling and their own leanings, not on any sacrosanct principle. I am advocating that, for the good of society, it lean in the direction pursued in Marsh v. Alabama. My argument for that is that the First Amendment is intended to pursue the principles laid out by Milton and Mills, which ultimately looked to avoid the removal of ideas from public discussion by those with power. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online fora, and those fora are having more and more influence over thought in America, it becomes increasingly important to apply those principles to them.

We didn't get to the point of the Supreme Court legalizing abortion and same sex marriage because of some staid devotion to discovering the true meaning of the law, but by a shift in the personal legal philosophies of the people in power. It's just as possible to shift it in other directions and apply the law accordingly. So the discussion, ultimately, is what you think the application should be and why.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 4:14:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 4:05:48 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2018 3:38:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected....

Erm... no. You see, a private space is controlled by a specific person on personal property of some variety. Its why people can make blogs but disable reader commentary. Its why Youtube content creators can disable viewer commentary. No, free speech doesn't need to be 'protected' once it shifts to private spaces.

I wasn't speaking about the application of US law, but of the central idea behind free speech that inspired the 1st amendment.

Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.

Subsequent applications on servers and cyber 'forums' were upheld as being subject to the rules of the owner. It seems as though the law doesn't favor restricting access to free speech where in there is no expectation of privacy. A public sidewalk seems to fit the bill for that, as said company town invited traffic.

What the law favors depends entirely on the justices ruling and their own leanings, not on any sacrosanct principle. I am advocating that, for the good of society, it lean in the direction pursued in Marsh v. Alabama. My argument for that is that the First Amendment is intended to pursue the principles laid out by Milton and Mills, which ultimately looked to avoid the removal of ideas from public discussion by those with power. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online fora, and those fora are having more and more influence over thought in America, it becomes increasingly important to apply those principles to them.

That methodology socializes private property. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online arena, then increasingly, those that want their message put there need to adopt a method to place their message, not require their message be put on some one else's dime. A church is under no obligation to invite counter claims to its religion take the pulpit.


We didn't get to the point of the Supreme Court legalizing abortion and same sex marriage because of some staid devotion to discovering the true meaning of the law, but by a shift in the personal legal philosophies of the people in power. It's just as possible to shift it in other directions and apply the law accordingly. So the discussion, ultimately, is what you think the application should be and why.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 4:46:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 4:14:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/17/2018 4:05:48 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2018 3:38:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Subsequent applications on servers and cyber 'forums' were upheld as being subject to the rules of the owner. It seems as though the law doesn't favor restricting access to free speech where in there is no expectation of privacy. A public sidewalk seems to fit the bill for that, as said company town invited traffic.

What the law favors depends entirely on the justices ruling and their own leanings, not on any sacrosanct principle. I am advocating that, for the good of society, it lean in the direction pursued in Marsh v. Alabama. My argument for that is that the First Amendment is intended to pursue the principles laid out by Milton and Mills, which ultimately looked to avoid the removal of ideas from public discussion by those with power. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online fora, and those fora are having more and more influence over thought in America, it becomes increasingly important to apply those principles to them.

That methodology socializes private property. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online arena, then increasingly, those that want their message put there need to adopt a method to place their message, not require their message be put on some one else's dime.

The same argument can be used against speech in public places, and also does nothing to neutralize the original arguments for free speech, which held that anyone holding the power to remove an idea from general discussion causes such great harm to society that it ought to be made impossible. Some things ought to be 'socialized', and the main thoroughfares of information are one of them.

A church is under no obligation to invite counter claims to its religion take the pulpit.

This doesn'tconnect to the original argument, which is about a place where most of the conversation in a society takes place. A church is a place for religious communities to specifically talk about religion. The internet has thousands of niche discussion places like that which I wouldn't want subjected to the first amendment. If people want to gather with like-minded people to discuss a certain topic, I have nothing against that and don't see it as a bad thing. Rather, I think that in the place where people who disagree with one another spend their time discussing various topics of import, free speech needs to be in place in order for us to have a society of robust and honest political debate (essential for the health of a democracy). A century ago, this place was the town square. Increasingly, that place is online platforms. I don't like this fact for several reasons, but it is a fact. And if discussions of import move into a space where they can be readily censored, then we will simply no longer live in a society with a free exchange of ideas, because the playing field will always be tilted.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 5:01:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 4:46:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2018 4:14:59 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/17/2018 4:05:48 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2018 3:38:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Subsequent applications on servers and cyber 'forums' were upheld as being subject to the rules of the owner. It seems as though the law doesn't favor restricting access to free speech where in there is no expectation of privacy. A public sidewalk seems to fit the bill for that, as said company town invited traffic.

What the law favors depends entirely on the justices ruling and their own leanings, not on any sacrosanct principle. I am advocating that, for the good of society, it lean in the direction pursued in Marsh v. Alabama. My argument for that is that the First Amendment is intended to pursue the principles laid out by Milton and Mills, which ultimately looked to avoid the removal of ideas from public discussion by those with power. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online fora, and those fora are having more and more influence over thought in America, it becomes increasingly important to apply those principles to them.

That methodology socializes private property. If public discussion is shifting increasingly to online arena, then increasingly, those that want their message put there need to adopt a method to place their message, not require their message be put on some one else's dime.

The same argument can be used against speech in public places...

Not as such, no. Public spaces are available to all, generally.

and also does nothing to neutralize the original arguments for free speech, which held that anyone holding the power to remove an idea from general discussion causes such great harm to society that it ought to be made impossible. Some things ought to be 'socialized', and the main thoroughfares of information are one of them.

I think it ignores the original argument: venues such as FB are not 'general' discussion. FB is a voluntary opt-in forum. You create a user name, and secure pass word to access information of varying degrees of sensitivity from other users. FB has final control of your account, and postings, as it is their service you are opting in for. You are attempting to wrest control of private interest for the audience it garners. The internet, on the whole, should be seen as the 'public utility', I agree. Individual forums, paid for by the content creators, should not.


A church is under no obligation to invite counter claims to its religion take the pulpit.

This doesn't connect to the original argument, which is about a place where most of the conversation in a society takes place.

Well more than 75% of citizens in the US identify as religious. Appx 40% of them attend church on a regular weekly basis, representing a significant population of the US. That the conversation is directed by a certain topic shouldn't change what its about, or whom is allowed to say what there.

A church is a place for religious communities to specifically talk about religion.

Why not -all- religions?

The internet has thousands of niche discussion places like that which I wouldn't want subjected to the first amendment. If people want to gather with like-minded people to discuss a certain topic, I have nothing against that and don't see it as a bad thing.

Unless its FB, apparently.

Rather, I think that in the place where people who disagree with one another spend their time discussing various topics of import, free speech needs to be in place in order for us to have a society of robust and honest political debate (essential for the health of a democracy). A century ago, this place was the town square. Increasingly, that place is online platforms. I don't like this fact for several reasons, but it is a fact. And if discussions of import move into a space where they can be readily censored, then we will simply no longer live in a society with a free exchange of ideas, because the playing field will always be tilted.

No offense, but in genuinely sounds like you are simply tailoring your argument in order to hi-jack the most readily available audience. If FB doesn't want whatever message put into their servers, and disseminated using their intellectual property, that's it. No mas. Rather than conform private interest into public, it would be incumbent upon you to sway private consumers of the FB product back into various public forums. That, or create your own content to allow whatever you want while on the web.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
HairlessApe
Posts: 245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 2:04:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 2:57:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 6:51:25 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.

Didn't you ruin your premise by noting that MySpace had control of the market until FaceBook came along?

Not at all, as the market occupied by MySpace wasn't saturated in the least, hence why Facebook has since far outstripped them in users. The problem with breaking into a market occupied by Facebook is that there's a finite number of people online and so many of them use the platform that there's no room for an alternative to grow. When Myspace was at its prime the market was still wide open. Market saturation is a central mechanic.

I don't agree that FB has market saturation. There seem to be many social/discussion/photo sharing apps. Could you provide the evidence for your claim?
At one point people could have said that MySpace owned the market and then we found out they didn't.
How about this forum; are you entitled to free speech here or can the admin simply ban you ex-cathedra?


I think, before we talk about regulating FB we ought to determine if FB is something like a utility that people can't do without or if it's just a recreation.

That's irrelevant to the issue of free speech, imo. We have laws about free speech because it is seen as immensely harmful for an idea to be barred from discussion by the populace, so a free public forum is guaranteed by law. If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected. Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. If you're talking about regulating a private entity/company/platform then you have to justify those regulations which means you have to determine if it is a utility like a Phone etc..
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 4:48:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 2:04:45 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/17/2018 2:57:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 6:51:25 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.

Didn't you ruin your premise by noting that MySpace had control of the market until FaceBook came along?

Not at all, as the market occupied by MySpace wasn't saturated in the least, hence why Facebook has since far outstripped them in users. The problem with breaking into a market occupied by Facebook is that there's a finite number of people online and so many of them use the platform that there's no room for an alternative to grow. When Myspace was at its prime the market was still wide open. Market saturation is a central mechanic.

I don't agree that FB has market saturation. There seem to be many social/discussion/photo sharing apps. Could you provide the evidence for your claim?

https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com...

2 billion users. The amount of people in the world with internet access outside Asia (https://www.internetworldstats.com...). There are only 500 million people in Asia using facebook: https://www.statista.com...

In 2016, 1.4 billion of those were daily active users. (https://zephoria.com...)

If that's not market saturation, the term doesn't have any descriptive power. Facebook's capacity for growth in the Western world is approaching whatever vanishingly small sliver of the population is not on line, and that sliver is itself shrinking, and they will probably be more geared towards increasing the frequency of use and therefore ad exposure for people in the West, with energy also focused on expanding into foreign markets in areas like East Asia.

At one point people could have said that MySpace owned the market and then we found out they didn't.

Not accurately. We didn't 'find out that they didn't', they never did. At its peak, MySpace pulled 70 million unique visitors (https://www.pcmag.com...). At the time, there were 246,822,936 people online in North America. (https://web.archive.org...)

How about this forum; are you entitled to free speech here or can the admin simply ban you ex-cathedra?

Since I'm basing my argument on user numbers, I'm obviously not entitled to free speech here.

I think, before we talk about regulating FB we ought to determine if FB is something like a utility that people can't do without or if it's just a recreation.

That's irrelevant to the issue of free speech, imo. We have laws about free speech because it is seen as immensely harmful for an idea to be barred from discussion by the populace, so a free public forum is guaranteed by law. If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected. Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. If you're talking about regulating a private entity/company/platform then you have to justify those regulations which means you have to determine if it is a utility like a Phone etc..

No you don't. The government regulates plenty of private companies that aren't utilities.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 4:52:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

Who should the regulator be?
Di mortuis
FungusOfHam
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 7:03:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 9:14:19 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

You know you"re full of sh*t. We know you"re full of sh*t.

Can you please stop posting with the pretext that you"re not full of sh*t?

It will save everyone a lot of time.::

We know it's you Nom.
FungusOfHam
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 7:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 11:12:14 PM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

So a second amendment wonk wants to ignore the first amendment......

It's a private business, they can say, censor, delete what they like.::

Looks like you've created a completely false premise, seeing the OP says "should conservatives shut up and make their own Facebook?"
Wizofoz
Posts: 3,368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2018 9:17:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 7:06:20 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
At 4/16/2018 11:12:14 PM, Wizofoz wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

So a second amendment wonk wants to ignore the first amendment......

It's a private business, they can say, censor, delete what they like.::

Looks like you've created a completely false premise, seeing the OP says "should conservatives shut up and make their own Facebook?"

Nice cherry pick- it also said "Should it be regulated by government,".

What exactly are the condition required for you to temporarily lose the ability to read?
HairlessApe
Posts: 245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 3:35:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/17/2018 4:48:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/17/2018 2:04:45 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/17/2018 2:57:43 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 6:51:25 PM, HairlessApe wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:42:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?

They can't 'make their own version of Facebook' because the market is by its nature anti-competitive, making the platforms natural monopolies. Once a user base has grown to a certain point in any platform niche, any competitor will be unable to break in because the major thing that any platform 'sells' to its users is access to a large user base, while it makes its profits selling access to that large user base to advertisers. This is why 'free speech' alternatives like Gab didn't replace twitter: when the point is to exchange ideas with a large number of people, not many people will voluntarily move to a smaller platform. The only ones who do are usually cliquish rejects and psychopath that nobody wants to deal with anyway, and they usually destroy the capacity of the fledgling platform to serve as neutral fora. The fact is that the formation of a platform takes place in a vacuum, whereas the formation of any competitors do not, so they cannot be considered parallels in any way. Just look at the comparison between Facebook beating out MySpace and its current position: http://royal.pingdom.com.... Facebook should either be forcible broken up or treated as a public forum (subjected to first amendment protections), imo. I would prefer the latter.

Didn't you ruin your premise by noting that MySpace had control of the market until FaceBook came along?

Not at all, as the market occupied by MySpace wasn't saturated in the least, hence why Facebook has since far outstripped them in users. The problem with breaking into a market occupied by Facebook is that there's a finite number of people online and so many of them use the platform that there's no room for an alternative to grow. When Myspace was at its prime the market was still wide open. Market saturation is a central mechanic.

I don't agree that FB has market saturation. There seem to be many social/discussion/photo sharing apps. Could you provide the evidence for your claim?

https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com...

2 billion users. The amount of people in the world with internet access outside Asia (https://www.internetworldstats.com...). There are only 500 million people in Asia using facebook: https://www.statista.com...

In 2016, 1.4 billion of those were daily active users. (https://zephoria.com...)

If that's not market saturation, the term doesn't have any descriptive power. Facebook's capacity for growth in the Western world is approaching whatever vanishingly small sliver of the population is not on line, and that sliver is itself shrinking, and they will probably be more geared towards increasing the frequency of use and therefore ad exposure for people in the West, with energy also focused on expanding into foreign markets in areas like East Asia.

At one point people could have said that MySpace owned the market and then we found out they didn't.

Not accurately. We didn't 'find out that they didn't', they never did. At its peak, MySpace pulled 70 million unique visitors (https://www.pcmag.com...). At the time, there were 246,822,936 people online in North America. (https://web.archive.org...)

How about this forum; are you entitled to free speech here or can the admin simply ban you ex-cathedra?

Since I'm basing my argument on user numbers, I'm obviously not entitled to free speech here.

I think, before we talk about regulating FB we ought to determine if FB is something like a utility that people can't do without or if it's just a recreation.

That's irrelevant to the issue of free speech, imo. We have laws about free speech because it is seen as immensely harmful for an idea to be barred from discussion by the populace, so a free public forum is guaranteed by law. If the forum shifts to private spaces, it still needs to be protected. Hence the ruling in Marsh v. Alabama, where a company town wasn't allowed to stop people from distributing pamphlets even though they owned the sidewalks.

I disagree that it's irrelevant. If you're talking about regulating a private entity/company/platform then you have to justify those regulations which means you have to determine if it is a utility like a Phone etc..

No you don't. The government regulates plenty of private companies that aren't utilities.

You make some valid points. I'll have to look deeper into what regulations for FB would look like.
When I said "Utilities" I'm talking about something that is basically a necessity to use. Perhaps I incorrectly view FB as a leisure or recreational activity simply because I don't personally find it's use necessary for my day to day activities; like my bank or my electricity...
One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced. -Sam Harris
Mingodalia
Posts: 2,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:14:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?::

I say let them censor and prove they are intolerant bigots. Let them openly prove they are the names they call everyone else.
"I haven't felt like a Rebublican since 2012"
-James Comey

The NSA did not collect information on American citizens.
-James Clapper

I did not leak sensitive information during the 2016 presidential election about the FBI's ongoing Clinton Foundation investigation to The Wall Street Journal.
-Andrew McCabe

...that there"s no way he gets elected"but I"m afraid we can"t take that risk. It"s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
-Peter Strzok
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:16:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:14:35 PM, Mingodalia wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?::

I say let them censor and prove they are intolerant bigots. Let them openly prove they are the names they call everyone else.

Does it matter what a fungalminge says?
Di mortuis
Mingodalia
Posts: 2,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2018 5:43:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:16:06 PM, desmac wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:14:35 PM, Mingodalia wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?::

I say let them censor and prove they are intolerant bigots. Let them openly prove they are the names they call everyone else.

Does it matter what a fungalminge says?::

So no rebuttal to liberal intolerance. Couldn't have called that one...
"I haven't felt like a Rebublican since 2012"
-James Comey

The NSA did not collect information on American citizens.
-James Clapper

I did not leak sensitive information during the 2016 presidential election about the FBI's ongoing Clinton Foundation investigation to The Wall Street Journal.
-Andrew McCabe

...that there"s no way he gets elected"but I"m afraid we can"t take that risk. It"s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
-Peter Strzok
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2018 5:48:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/18/2018 5:14:35 PM, Mingodalia wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?::

I say let them censor and prove they are intolerant bigots. Let them openly prove they are the names they call everyone else.

So you have answered the question in your own OP.
Di mortuis
FungusOfHam
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2018 5:53:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2018 5:48:20 AM, desmac wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:14:35 PM, Mingodalia wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?::

I say let them censor and prove they are intolerant bigots. Let them openly prove they are the names they call everyone else.

So you have answered the question in your own OP.::

At least you can admit your tribe are Nazis.
desmac
Posts: 7,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2018 5:57:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2018 5:53:23 AM, FungusOfHam wrote:
At 4/19/2018 5:48:20 AM, desmac wrote:
At 4/18/2018 5:14:35 PM, Mingodalia wrote:
At 4/16/2018 4:06:26 PM, FungusOfHam wrote:
Facebook has censored, blocked, and used anti- conservative algorithms. Should it be regulated by government, or do conservatives just need to shut up and make their own version of facebook?::

I say let them censor and prove they are intolerant bigots. Let them openly prove they are the names they call everyone else.

So you have answered the question in your own OP.::

At least you can admit your tribe are Nazis.

Your reading comprehension is a curious thing, Minger
Di mortuis
chanyuan
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2018 1:58:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
chanyuan2018.06.21 BNBNBNBN
http://www.kevindurant.us...
http://www.mcmoutletstore.us.org...
http://www.chromeheartoutlet.us.com...
http://www.oakleysunglassesewholesale.us.com...
http://www.toryburchoutletoutletsale.us.com...
http://jazz.nbajerseysstore.us.com...
http://www.yeezyboostoutlet.us.com...
http://warriors.nbajerseysstore.us.com...
http://www.basketballjerseys.us.org...
http://www.uggoutletugg.us.com...
http://www.christianlouboutinshoesuk.me.uk...
http://www.uggoutletstoresofficial.us.com...
http://www.y3shoes.org...
http://www.keen.us.com...
http://www.coach-outletstore.us.org...
http://www.jordanshoesfactory.us.com...
http://www.nikeairmax-90.me.uk...
http://www.polooutletclearance.us.com...
http://www.uggoutletstoress.us.com...
http://www.michaelkorsoutletcoupons.us.com...
http://www.coachoutletcoachoutletonline.us.com...
http://mulberryoutlet.outlet-store.co.uk...
http://lakers.nbajerseysstore.us.com...
http://www.kobebryantshoes.in.net...
http://www.coachoutletcoachs.us.com...
http://www.isabelmarant.us.org...
http://www.cheapmlbjerseys.net...
http://www.uggsoutletsclearance.us.org...
http://www.vancleefarpels.us.org...
http://www.tomsshoes.in.net...
http://www.adidas-wings.in.net...
http://www.pandoracharmssaleclearances.us.org...
http://www.coachoutlet-store.us.org...
http://www.longchamphandbagssale.us.com...
http://www.clevelandcavaliers.us.com...
http://www.chopardjewelry.us...
http://www.outletcoachoutlets.us.com...
http://www.airjordan4.org...
http://www.hervelegeroutlet.us.com...
http://www.oakleysunglasseseyewears.us.com...
http://www.swarovskisale.org.uk...
http://www.jordanshoessale.us.com...
http://www.uggbootclearance.net.co...
http://www.canadagoose-outletonline.name...
http://www.jacketscanadagoose.ca...
http://www.toryburchoutletus.us.com...
http://cavaliers.nbajerseysstore.us.com...
http://www.nbajerseysnike.us.com...
http://www.poloralphlaurenshop.us.com...
http://www.canadagoosejacketscom.com.co...
http://www.mizuno-shoes.us.com...
http://www.mishka.us.org...
http://www.adidasoutlet-stores.us.com...
http://www.raybansunglassesrbs.us.com...
http://www.linksoflondon.org.uk...
http://www.moncler.us.org...
http://www.truereligionjeansoutletstore.us.com...
http://www.uggsboots.ca...
http://www.katespadeoutletstores.us...
http://www.cheapnfljerseysforsale.us.com...
http://www.longchampsoldes.fr...
http://www.airmax90.us.com...
http://www.suicokesandals.us...
http://www.michaelkorsoutletclearance-online.us.com...
http://www.canadagooseoutletss.us.com...
http://www.michaelkorsoutletmacy.us.com...
http://www.michaelkorshandbagsmk.org.uk...
http://www.mulberrybagssale.org.uk...
http://www.airjordanretro.com.co...
http://www.bulgarijewelry.us...
http://www.texansjerseys.us...
http://www.michaelkorsoutletnewyork.us.com...
http://www.guccioutletsonline.us.org...
http://www.coachoutletonlinecoachfactory-outlet.us.com...
http://www.oakleysunglasses-outlets.us.org...
http://www.pandoracharmssale.us.org...
http://www.coachhandbagsclearance.us.com...
http://www.kevindurantshoes.net...
http://www.poloralphlaurens.in.net...
http://www.nobisoutlet.us.org...
http://www.mont-blancpens.com.co...
http://www.coachoutletofficialonline.us.com...
http://www.foampositeshoe.net...
http://www.moncler.us.com...
http://www.michaelkorsoutletca.us.com...
http://pacers.nbajerseysstore.us.com...
http://www.balenciagasneakers.us.org...
http://www.canadagoosecanadian.com.co...
http://www.cheapnhljerseyss.us.com...
http://www.air-max90.co.uk...
http://www.longchampoutlet1.us.com...
http://www.canadiangoosejackets.us.com...
http://www.kd10nike.us.com...
http://www.sanantoniospursjersey.us...
http://www.moncleroutletstores.us.org...
http://www.alifeclothing.us.com...
http://www.cheapuggbootsonline.us.com...
http://www.canadagoose-outletstore.name...
http://www.michaelkorsoutletz.us.com...
http://www.truereligionjeans.co.uk...