With Google’s recent monopoly status being a topic a discussion recently. This article from 2017 argues that we should nationalize these platforms in the age of platform capitalism. Ahead of its time, in fact the author predicted the downfall of Ello.
Lol. What a ludicrous idea.
How high do you want your taxes to be, for a start?
How high do you want your taxes to be, for a start?
High enough to cover proper healthcare and education (including higher education) for everyone. Personal wealth should never be a factor when it comes to education and healthcare.
Right. But do you realise how high they would have to be to nationalise multiple trillion dollar companies?
Considering it wouldn’t need to run for-profit, it would cost much less than their market evaluation.
I’m not the guy suggesting nationalising SoMe, and I actually don’t think it’s a good thing to nationalise that particular function. But shutting down for-profit driven SoMe would probably be a good idea.
The government doesn’t need a warrant to browse data that it’s already in possession of. Food for thought.
Sounds like it really shouldn’t have possession of that, although my sympathy is limited for fools who post their crimes on the Facebook
That’s not the kind of data they’re looking for, if you post it somewhere publicly available they already have that without a warrant or anything. The kind of data to be worried about is the kind that those companies collect about where you travel and when, and what kind of people you talk to through email or private messages. Even if you don’t think there’s anything incriminating in there, law enforcement loves to collect evidence that they think can be used to pin any crime on anybody, even if they don’t know what that crime is exactly.
They also don’t need a warrant to browse data that companies just give them freely. The government can often easily get your data without a warrant if it’s stored by a megacorporation.
Good thing they already possess it all via realtime backdoors into every major tech company. The only thing that would change, is the (im)plausible deniability.
I agree, though. We’re all in danger.
This
Exactly this
The government doesn’t need to know my search habits without a warrant
Maybe not a warrant, and IANAL, but government agencies aren’t necessarily at liberty to share information amongst themselves. For instance, IRS needs a court order to share returns with law enforcement (IRC Section 6103(i)(1)).
But yeah…this seems like maybe not a super great solution…
Okay, which nation gets them?
Can we go with Egypt? I feel like they should get some more time in the history books.
We need to split them, kill them, do whatever it takes to scatter the power they’ve accumulated.
They , as in people holding that power, want to nationalize them, because it simplifies the system they have already built for themselves.
Both Harris’ program and such articles are all in the same direction. “Corps are fine, they just should be state-controlled and their services affordable”.
No. People who want this are power-hungry fools, and despite their feeling of victory factually achieved and only waiting to be formalized, they will get fucked and this will fail.
Yup. It’s time for some trust-busting. Amazon’s logistics is great (though there is need for unionization of the employees) but their shopping site sucks. Kill the vertical integration so there can be different websites that use their logistics to deliver stuff. Many shopping portals competing with each other to allow people to quickly find products that don’t suck and have those products be delivered within days.
Pull out the Cloud services from Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Probably should have some standard APIs for cloud services so to make it easier to switch between them which means they will have to compete instead of just locking people in to their particular service.
Social media just needs to be regulated like the phone companies are. Required to interoperate. Don’t like what Elon Musk has done with Twitter? Move to Mastodon, Threads, or whatever and still be able to communicate with your friends that are still on Twitter. Create a common social media API standard that the biggies are required to implement so they can’t use the network effect as a barrier to entry. Moving to a different social media platforms should be like changing to a different phone company. You don’t have to be on the same phone company that your friends use, so why should you have to be on the same social media platform that your friends use?
Maybe update the CDA so that if their algorithm recommends something, they face the same liability as traditional media does when they publish something. Sure they shouldn’t be liable whenever a random user posts something, but if their algorithm is recommending that post to millions of people, it doesn’t seem any different from a newspaper printing an article saying some bullshit.
I’d say computers with internet have done to regulations of mass media the same thing that early computers have done to encryption.
They allow platforms\businesses\whoever to make systems of enormous complexity, easily incompatible and with intentional gray zones for laws here and there, and to do that fast and in enormous quantities.
For example, with algorithmic recommendations and who’s responsible.
What in the world before the Internet would be generally contained to real physical objects and procedures hard to change that fast, after it became wholly models defined by computer programs. When Facebook reads your messages, they don’t open any physical envelope and they don’t even do something at a telephone station.
There’s an explosion of facts legal systems have not been designed to deal with. As we’ve all seen with the way they react to it.
Governments are bad; I get it.
But is it tiring to constantly mistrust the people we’ve put in charge of our shared resources or is it resignation to keep choosing the same people each time instead of the ones you CAN trust?
I didn’t put anybody in charge. I could theoretically employ them. They are employees.
When someone wants trust, they are the last person to be trusted.
I obviously don’t choose much.
First, because an anonymous vote where you can vote only for one candidate, not even against. Something similar to likes\dislikes would make more sense, but with each voter getting, say, the amount of likes equal to floor of 1/3 choices in the ballot, and the same amount of dislikes.
Second, because I live in Russia.
Scattering it just creates an opening for the next monopoly to come and fill the gap. Nationalizing ensures everyone gets fair and equal access and prevents a capitalist monopoly.
It’s so easy to just say “they” and sound scary it’s harder to actually figure out why some solutions are good and others bad without resorting to a mysterious malevolent entity.
Nationalizing ensures everyone gets fair and equal access and prevents a capitalist monopoly.
Some people live with a regulated market and think that it won’t lead to monopoly no matter what.
Some people live without seeing what nationalization does and think that it will be something fair and equal.
Let’s generally avoid being so certain about things we haven’t seen.
It’s so easy to just say “they” and sound scary it’s harder to actually figure out why some solutions are good and others bad without resorting to a mysterious malevolent entity.
There’s nothing mysterious in this.
If hard narcotics are highly illegal, but also still generally available in your country for those who seek, then somebody does that work with protection from sufficiently powerful people.
If prostitution is illegal in your country, then the same.
And so on and so forth.
Now we are talking about the government control over a large chunk of your communications. There’s no need to sound scary, this is bullshit and you are either a shill or very inexperienced.
Some people live with a regulated market and think that it won’t lead to monopoly no matter what.
It pretty much by definition has to be a monopoly. The point is that profit isn’t the goal anymore. Serving the people is.
There’s nothing mysterious in this.
If hard narcotics are highly illegal, but also still generally available in your country for those who seek, then somebody does that work with protection from sufficiently powerful people.
What? That’s totally an unrelated topic.
Now we are talking about the government control over a large chunk of your communications. There’s no need to sound scary, this is bullshit and you are either a shill or very inexperienced.
They already partially are in most places. Building infrastructure requires government consent or it’d be chaos. Having an option of a search engine being national does not put them in charge of all options though. It just creates a base version that people always have access to.
It pretty much by definition has to be a monopoly. The point is that profit isn’t the goal anymore. Serving the people is.
You can’t possibly have any instrument to set that goal to people with more power than you or “the people”. And idiots thinking they can have centralized power with “a different goal” somehow set are the ones who’ve lead us to the current state of things.
What? That’s totally an unrelated topic.
It’s not. That’s the kind of system you are suggesting to nationalize something under.
They already partially are in most places. Building infrastructure requires government consent or it’d be chaos. Having an option of a search engine being national does not put them in charge of all options though. It just creates a base version that people always have access to.
Having an option of Meta or Google doesn’t put them in charge of all social networks too. But in practice it’s different.
The only thing worse than a monopoly is a government owned monopoly
You prefer your monopolies to not be democratically accountable?
I prefer no monopolies, but if it’s something that is a natural monopoly, I certainly don’t want it by a for profit foreign company.
Maybe the answer is to split these guys up by country and each government decides what they do with their chunk. We’ll see which works best.
Independent not for profits, straight up nationalised, private still(baby Bell), publicly owned and privately run, etc etc.
Best case it’s gonna get bloated and beurocratic (any monopoly, but especially state run ones) and if it’s government owned they’ll use the power of the government to prevent competition (more than a private monopoly which will still try but won’t have as much power to do so).
Worst case it goes off the rails and the service is unavailable/unusable. If it’s anything important - say the Soviet’s food production - anybody who needs that service doesn’t get it.
See things is, I’m a Brit. Water and rail are going to be brought back under groverment control because running them privately has failed. Buses are another one where when the local government has taken back over, services have improved. Partly because they are run providing a service, not a profit.
Certain bit of society’s infrastructure is better run at a loss for the better running of the wider economy. If every bit is run at a profit, the whole can be less profitable. Most countries don’t have all private road system. France has lot of private motorways, which are strangely empty, because the local avoid them because of cost. Like the M6 Toll in the UK.
There’s not really much difference. Either way it’s a legal entity defined by the state and run by the extremely privileged.
One has the power of corporate lawyers to enforce it’s will, one has an army and a prison system to enforce it’s will.
Using anti trust laws to ensure a free marketGiving ownership of the monopolies to the government… whose leaders are funded by said monopolies…
This is a dumb idea even for politicians.
How is democratizing dumb again?
Government bureaucracy. Social networks should be as close to direct representation of the people as we can get, like the fediverse.
This is a dumb idea even for politicians.
Politicians are usually smart, just parasitic and destructive.
Giving ownership of the monopolies to the government… whose leaders are funded by said monopolies…
So this idea gets promoted by people from that loop you are describing here. What’s dumb? It makes sense that they are doing this. It’s in their interest. They are stronger than you and are forcing you into that bent over position. It’ll only be dumb if you can prevent them from succeeding.
Someone needs to learn world history before making proposals like this.
Someone should say what they’re referring to before hitting enter and be done with their cryptic comment
Presumably, they are referring to literally every other time a government seized control of the media. This isn’t exactly the same, but it’s fairly close to some of what happened in the early stages of some of those cases.
Nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon? If somebody posted that on Google, Facebook and Amazon, I’d say, “well, they seem to not know better”. But posting that in the noncommercial Fediverse? Why?
I found the idea interesting, just something to think about as these platforms continue to develop.
How about just making them actually pay an amount of taxes commensurate with the burdens they apply on society?
Not Ello!
Jk, I was the only person I knew with an Ello account. I know more people on lemmy and mastodon and fediverse stuff than I did on Ello. It didn’t take much to predict it wouldn’t work out.
I, too, predicted the downfall of Ello, where’s my praise?
deleted by creator
Note:
This article is more than 6 years old
Fuck nationalization of social media. Honestly, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard.
The idea that giving the government a monopoly on the biggest data hoarders is somehow better than having the capitalists own it is mind-boggling.
The government doesn’t need a warrant to search through its own data.
The last thing we need is to give the state more power over our lives, more insight into our lives, and more control over the narratives we learn.
Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.
Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won’t be able to do anything about it.
They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.
You are saying this
Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.
as part of discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won’t stop them. Only force will.
French political tradition and all that.
Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won’t be able to do anything about it.
I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.
They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.
This is why I advocate for decentralizing power (and the dissolution of all hierarchies and hierarchic power structures). The last thing I want is a despot using the current mechanisms of power and centralize everything, and have such an absurd amount of power.
You are saying this [cut quote about my advocacy of decentralization] as part of a discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won’t stop them. Only force will.
I agree. Every single movement that has gone against a component of the government required either violence, or backed, credible threats of it. The government will never reduce its power to the benefit of the people, even if that policy is popular.
I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.
There are issues with that position as well, as described best in chapter 38 of Tao Te Ching. Anarchy would be “doctrine of humanity” in that quote, while the current state of things would be “li” (which is bad), and the previous supposedly good state of things would be “justice”.
I’m not familiar with taoism, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I’ve read the chapter on this site.
I think you are talking about this paragraph:
Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is kindness. When kindness is lost, there is justice. When justice is lost, there is ritual. Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
I don’t get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Li is Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(neo-Confucianism)), or in the quote I have, ritual? Are you saying I’m an advocate for Justice in the sense of this quote? I think you are either misunderstanding me (I know I am not understanding what you are saying since it is unclear), or ascribing a set of values to anarchism that doesn’t line up with what I’m arguing in order to dismiss my argument.
To be fully clear, I’m going to elaborate on what I’m saying. I’m giving a simple cause and effect statement here, not some moral justification. When there is a liberatory movement that threatens the power structure that enforces hierarchy that oppresses people, those in power will use their position to make the movement, threatening tactics/techniques of, or other things done by the people of the movement illegal, necessitating breaking the law to continue. Working within the shifting bounds of law is insufficient.
It was a fuzzy thought about anything done by abstract ideal rules being a bad solution IRL.
Like sure, anarchism is fine, but if right now you are a group of honest people with some time-pressing threat, it may be better to do things the old-fashioned way and choose a leader for the time being.
About the original subject of this conversation - we were agreeing with each other.
No, you’d be an advocate for goodness, many people would be advocates for kindness, status quo 20 years ago would be justice, and ritual would be what we have now. Anyway, don’t look too much into this, I just thought it fit. If I’m understanding it correctly, Tao Te Ching actually is supposed to be treated that carelessly, ha-ha.
If the government owns it, isn’t it subject to FOIA and public records laws/disclosures?
FOIA is great and all, and so are public records laws and disclosure laws.
But the state is gonna state, and when push comes to shove, social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.
I’m not concerned about the ability to FOIA shit about Twitter or Facebook’s algorithm, as much as I’d like to know about how it targets the content slop to its users. I’m concerned about how it will consolidate power into fewer hands, and how state sponsored social media will be abused. And I don’t think FOIA would ever reveal that if it happened.
social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.
it already is that, or did you miss the stories about Biden administration officials meeting with Facebook, TikTok etc about “content moderation”?
You are absolutely correct, I’m just worried about one less barrier.
Oooooorrr…Let’s just break them up like we should have done a long time ago.
Yeah I don’t want government or private monopolies. Competition in an open, well regulated market seems better.
Or both!edit: My enthusiasm was well meant but misplaced. On further consideration, I don’t want government to control social media.
First I’d propose a nationalization of internet services.
Without that is partly like being without electricity.
Yes, you’d survive but it’s damn inconvenient in the modern way of life.
