Weigh In : Should the Government Regulate Social Media?

[Mercer]

Following along @misteraven's threads touching on this subject, I'd like to explore the role of government in regulating Social Media. A new law went into effect today called the "California Consumer Privacy Act". The law itself isn't aimed at social media per-say it's more of a broad regulation aimed at all businesses, but I thought it touched on topics covered in previous threads like:

 

Weigh In : Has the social media revolution devolved conversation?

Weigh In : Individual privacy and freedom versus collective *safety and security*

 

The new law is intended to allow California Residents the rights to:

 

1. Know what personal data is being collected about them.
2. Know whether their personal data is sold or disclosed and to whom.
3. Say no to the sale of personal data.
4. Access their personal data.
5. Request a business to delete any personal information about a consumer collected from that consumer.
6. Not be discriminated against for exercising their privacy rights.

This go me thinking about the topic of people regulating Facebook etc. Basically you all know my stance, fuck the government. I think if these companies are doing something truly harmful they're already breaking a law to do so. If Facebook tells me "hey, we're going to sell your info to advertisers" and I still choose to use FB, that's on me. Both myself, and Facebook came to an agreement, we're going to provide you with X, in exchange for Y.

 

Some people don't see it like that, they consider Facebook a public utility of sorts, and that the users should not just have the right to refuse it, but allow the government to come in and destroy the business models of these companies. I'm so far down the rabbit hole of fuck government involvement that I see this as a harmful position. Regulations aimed at social media will inadvertently worsen user experience by making it near impossible for an upstart competitor to comply with these new regulations.

 

Furthermore it's a violation of private property rights IMO. Like back in the day when we had adds on 12oz I was conflicted at first until I thought about it using logic, rather than emotion. None of us liked the adds, or having to tone down lacing every thread up with porn, but at the same time, none of us chipped in on 12oz. None of us were willing to start a "13ozProphet" and move our discussions over to that platform either. Same as now, nobody is going to shell out the dough to have servers running, and build up a facebook2 from scratch on the gamble it will be profitable one day.

 

Bottom line for me is over regulating this space means only the big boys will be able to actually comply with regulations, making it near impossible we'll ever have a viable alternative virtually guaranteeing FB holds a monopoly. Kind of like if you didn't like a bad habit your girl had. You'd simply have to dump her until she got her shit together. You don't make the cops stop her from ho'ing out on Saturdays and fucking the entire crew, that's her choice, you just move on, or deal with it.

 

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Dirty_habiT]

That's an interesting angle I hadn't considered.  At first, the bullet points sounded like a good thing, but then after reading your thoughts I realized that, yes, this is a bad thing because it will allow government to change what someone is already doing that "isn't illegal".

 

I'd be ok with this type of regulation crushing facebook's business model to where they are no longer profitable and social media in general.  I think social media sucks and it's ruined humans' ability to interact with eachother.  The problem is that even if FB gets fucked in all this, they have still made enough money to go off and do whatever next nefarious thing they want to do.

 

tldr; I'd be fine with all social media dying in a fire... permanently with nothing to replace it.  I don't care who your friends are unless I've met them personally.

[misteraven]

I've talked to @Mercerabout this a bit, but will put it down on record.

 

I have the same perspective on government that he does, but I don't see this so much as government interference of private property that we have a choice to use or not use. Yeah, I'm sure people can somehow work around using social media of all types, because it is their choice to do so or not. I also don't disagree with the concept that government regulation generally has the opposite effect from what it is most often sold to the public as. Crazy how they still come up with names like 'the patriot act' and 'the affordable health care act' when if you simply take the time to read into the legislation (instead of buying into the talking points spoon fed by the MSM), you quickly see it is anything but whatever its labeled as (and most often, the precise opposite). Obviously there's a lot of legislation surrounding corporate monopolies and though, most often, it describes a single dominant player in the market place that eclipses all others. I think its high time, we evaluate a lot of legislation like it and...

 

A. Audit the governments track record and treat them as if they're a business in itself... Review the resources allocated and judge them on the merits of their accomplishment with careful regard to the resources they'd been given to accomplish the task. And then further to that, audit the net effect / consequences that the efforts and resources have had at the micro and macro level and have a transparent and honest conversation on whether this is something we should continue.

 

B. Continuing the above, we should also have an open and honest conversation to extrapolate the natural progression of such legislation based upon evidence. My POV, based on my own understanding of the topic is that most laws are subject to interpretation, with very few exceptions (like the Bill of Rights). That its fairly easy to define the spirit and scope of legislation and that the more caught up in minutia you get with it, the more loop holes you create in that legislation. (Side note: I think its purposely engineered as such so that those with the resources to contest prosecution, can very often find ways out of them). We have a court system that allows fundamental concepts like innocent until proven guilty and being judged by a jury of your peers. So why draft endless tomes on the minutia of murder, when we can all understand the fundamental concept that killing another human is not a good thing and under most circumstances is a capital offense? Once we take it past that to include thousands of laws, each that consist of hundreds of pages of legislation, we see how anyone involved in drafting that legislation or are experts on that topic, are able to navigate the legalese to exploit the bits that were not covered, or IMHP, perhaps purposely omitted.

 

Anyhow, straying here but it speaks to Mercer's reference about how the government legislation has a tendency to burden the upstarts that don't have the resource to navigate those regulations, which is likely why a significant swath of that type of legislation is drafted by lobbyists working for corporations that are also bank rolling the political campaigns of the legislators that are appointed to package and present it to become law.

 

With this being said, I believe that a good many of these companies have managed to capitalize on the wild west of a society in transition due to radical leaps in technology to become the power players that make up that landscape today. Along the way, they've made enough money to have undue sway on our legislative process by having unprecedented influence over politics, both by positioning politicians, as well as controlling the flow of data and communication that makes the modern world run. They've spread their tentacles so deep and so far, that it goes far beyond just being a monopoly on a utility that makes modern life a little easier. We are quickly moving to a place that you cannot easily participate fairly within modern society without consistent and thorough use of the various tools and platforms that are being supplied by these various platforms, that are all owned by a small handful of corporations. I believe like a the two party system we have in the USA, that this handful of corporations might ultimately be in competition with each other (thusly mitigating the label of a monopoly), but in the practical sense like a two party political system, they realize that if they cooperate on some level, they can maintain power, even if it has to be shared to a certain extent by the other party that managed to work up to having a seat at the table.

 

I don't disregard the fact that we made choices that put un into the position of having to allow these corporations into our daily lives, but I also recognize that never in a million years can the general public have foreseen how insidious this would become and that even the most cynical technologists could not accurately predict the inevitable outcome with a loud enough voice or certainty to sway the general public.

 

I was never a Facebook user. In comparison to most, I hardly used Instagram. I'm as biased against them and platforms like them as you can reasonably be. I've done just about everything I can to expose what I'm seeing and plant the seeds of discussion to wake more people up to whats happening. I've taken more than reasonable steps to protect myself from these platforms, often at significant expense. With more money, I'd take even more precautions, but I can't afford it right now. Meanwhile, I'm forced to maintain at least some connection to this because I literally place myself at a profound disadvantage in many ways if I could actually cut it out of my life entirely. It's not about being inconvenienced by learning how to navigate the physical world without GPS and Google Maps, its about being able to participate in the modern economy within a segment that almost only exists and prospers within the network controlled by this handful of corporations. And further to that, as each day / month / year passes, there's fewer and fewer market segments that insulated from the reach of these same corporations.

 

As if it isn't obvious to anyone paying attention, I have colleagues in the industry that have given me details on how the new battlefield for these corporations isn't entertainment as some might believe with the consolidation of broadcast into a handful of streaming services, but rather, health care. In another couple years, the health care industry will be revolutionized with the same vigor and pervasiveness as we see today with social media. So they already middle man our personal relationships, control the flow of information, content, entertainment and knowledge, as well as the means to which we access all that, but soon they'll be intimately involved in health and 'well being'.

 

Orwell, probably the most well known cynical futurist, hardly scratched the surface of how bad all that shit would get.

[Mercer]

 

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I've talked to @Mercerabout this a bit, but will put it down on record.

 

I have the same perspective on government that he does, but I don't see this so much as government interference of private property that we have a choice to use or not use.

This reminds me of the Socialist argument that "if we don't work, we're going to starve" implying there's no difference between being threatened directly with use of force, or threatened that you'll lose your job. This argument is at the core of the difference between Capitalism VS Socialism. If you can somehow twist the language to imply that employment isn't voluntary in nature, this opens the door for justifications like "seizing the means of production" or basically theft of private property because it serves the common good better under public ownership.

 

IMO this type of belief in public ownership of private property is not only a lie used by dictators to help themselves to other people property, the public is always worse off under Socialist conditions. Country, after country has demonstrated a decline in living standards always follows Socialist policy. There's this counterintuitive drive to implement a system designed with a purpose, to replace what the free market does without being consciously designed to do. Bur time , and time again we realize these systems come with problems of their own, and when compared to the problems a free market has, the Socialist/Government controlled rout as enticing as it seems on the surface always leaves the majority of the people living under Socialism (minus the politically connected commissars/communist party officials) worse off.

 

The free market is a beautiful thing to me, I almost feel like it's been designed by an omnipotent deity. Growing up in Germany next to the iron curtain will do that to a person. Seeing BMW's, Audi's, and Benzes blazing down the autobahn on one side of the fence, then catching a glimpse of the black smoke spewing death boxes they drove on pothole laden streets on the other side burned a deep appreciation for capitalism into my brain.

 

The fact is we do have a choice to use, or not use social media, and no amount of mental gymnastics can change that fact. That choice to use social media is just a better option for the vast majority of us all things considered. The same way living in a favela and working a sweat shop making Nike's is a better choice for people living in the jungles. Living in a tribe in the jungle is cool and all, and you'll have to sacrifice some of those benefits moving into a favela and working the sweat shop, but when weighed against staying, getting a shit job in a favela means a higher standard of living over all and most choose to make that jump. The same way getting a basic education and moving into the middle class from that favela is a better choice. Pain in the ass to not have your kid working in the sweat shop all day making money, but if they get an education your family may escape the favela, if you just give up the benefits of living a free life in a tribe, or making more money letting your kids work in the sweatshop with you.

 

You want a better system, sacrifice for it, build it yourself, the government won't give you a viable shortcut to the desired ends without ultimately fucking more things up than your original problems..

 

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Yeah, I'm sure people can somehow work around using social media of all types, because it is their choice to do so or not. I also don't disagree with the concept that government regulation generally has the opposite effect from what it is most often sold to the public as. Crazy how they still come up with names like 'the patriot act' and 'the affordable health care act' when if you simply take the time to read into the legislation (instead of buying into the talking points spoon fed by the MSM), you quickly see it is anything but whatever its labeled as (and most often, the precise opposite).

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Obviously there's a lot of legislation surrounding corporate monopolies and though, most often, it describes a single dominant player in the market place that eclipses all others. I think its high time, we evaluate a lot of legislation like it and...

What most don't realize is that monopoly itself is a government construct, and by regulating Social Media you'll actually do more monopolization of this industry, causing more harm than good. The single most important work ever done exploring this topic of monopoly was done by Murray N Rothbard while researching this concept for his magnum opus:  Man, Economy, and State. If you've got the time to listen, he explains this concept here far better than your boy Mercer could ever explain:

 

Monopoly and Competition Murray N Rothbard.mp3

 

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

A. Audit the governments track record and treat them as if they're a business in itself... Review the resources allocated and judge them on the merits of their accomplishment with careful regard to the resources they'd been given to accomplish the task. And then further to that, audit the net effect / consequences that the efforts and resources have had at the micro and macro level and have a transparent and honest conversation on whether this is something we should continue.

This is like asking the police to police themselves. Who would perform this audit? The government would, and we already know what their conclusion would be, higher taxes, and more government control is always their findings. Just like how cops can't seem to find fault in themselves blatantly violating the rights of their citizens.

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

B. Continuing the above, we should also have an open and honest conversation to extrapolate the natural progression of such legislation based upon evidence. My POV, based on my own understanding of the topic is that most laws are subject to interpretation, with very few exceptions (like the Bill of Rights). That its fairly easy to define the spirit and scope of legislation and that the more caught up in minutia you get with it, the more loop holes you create in that legislation.

It's the illogical nature of how legislation is organized. People write a law without really considering how it fits into the big picture. For example, we know murder is bad so we define what murder is a make a law outlawing it's practice. We know Theft is bad, and repeat. What we're left with is a jumblefuck of laws, without logical arrangement between them to avoid where conflicts between them come into play.

 

The Ancap view is the NAP should be the only law at the core, and all laws that follow are just definitions/interpretations of the NAP thereafter. The defenitions, and applications would have to fit into a legal hierarchy with zero conflicts. Our current system is like writing code by allowing one dev (legislature) to write a single function, then having another dev write another few lines of code virtually unaware of what the other dev has written before them or if their rules will conflict. This is illogical, and how we end up with civil asset forfeiture laws that are at odds with the premise of innocence until proven guilty. Basically the software running the system is laced throughout with multitudes of fatal errors that developer after developer is tasked with fixing without scrapping the entire codebase and starting from scratch.

 

Under the NAP, Facebook isn't violating anyones rights. Both facebook, and you have agreed to a terms of service. If facebook later decides they don't like these terms it would be silly if they sponsored a bill that voided whatever portion of their terms of service they later found disagreeable. With that said, it's just a silly for us, as users to agree to the TOS, then later try to void that agreement via legislation. 

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

(Side note: I think its purposely engineered as such so that those with the resources to contest prosecution, can very often find ways out of them). We have a court system that allows fundamental concepts like innocent until proven guilty and being judged by a jury of your peers. So why draft endless tomes on the minutia of murder, when we can all understand the fundamental concept that killing another human is not a good thing and under most circumstances is a capital offense? Once we take it past that to include thousands of laws, each that consist of hundreds of pages of legislation, we see how anyone involved in drafting that legislation or are experts on that topic, are able to navigate the legalese to exploit the bits that were not covered, or IMHP, perhaps purposely omitted.

Our country was founded by Jews, and Christians, and at the time the Ten Commandments from the old testament were probably the most beautiful expression of law they had known. Thus they tried to model the bill of rights, and legislation in genral after them. I'm 100% sure if they could see what happened to their creation a few generations later, they might consider organizing around a single concept like the NAP. Reading what many of they had written, they seemed well versed in the concepts of natural law, or rather, being born with rights (at least for white people back then). They knew these rights were inalienable meaning they conceded that legislation was seconday to these natural rights and modeled legislation on top of these rights. I often times imagine bringing Thomas Payne to our time via a time machine, and have a gut feeling he'd be being a card carrying member of the Mises institute like myself.

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

Anyhow, straying here but it speaks to Mercer's reference about how the government legislation has a tendency to burden the upstarts that don't have the resource to navigate those regulations, which is likely why a significant swath of that type of legislation is drafted by lobbyists working for corporations that are also bank rolling the political campaigns of the legislators that are appointed to package and present it to become law.

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

With this being said, I believe that a good many of these companies have managed to capitalize on the wild west of a society in transition due to radical leaps in technology to become the power players that make up that landscape today. Along the way, they've made enough money to have undue sway on our legislative process by having unprecedented influence over politics, both by positioning politicians, as well as controlling the flow of data and communication that makes the modern world run. They've spread their tentacles so deep and so far, that it goes far beyond just being a monopoly on a utility that makes modern life a little easier. We are quickly moving to a place that you cannot easily participate fairly within modern society without consistent and thorough use of the various tools and platforms that are being supplied by these various platforms, that are all owned by a small handful of corporations. I believe like a the two party system we have in the USA, that this handful of corporations might ultimately be in competition with each other (thusly mitigating the label of a monopoly), but in the practical sense like a two party political system, they realize that if they cooperate on some level, they can maintain power, even if it has to be shared to a certain extent by the other party that managed to work up to having a seat at the table.

The only thing I can say to this is if we legislate, then all following contenders for the "next facebook" etc. will have to follow these laws thus virtually guaranteeing the incumbent a massive advantage and monopoly. If we wrote a law stating that all posts must be availiable for scrutinization later for compliance, snapchat wouldn't exist. Those disappearing posts would be illegal, thus no snapchat. Granted that's not the best example but I'm just trying to illustrate the point that regulation almost certainly guarantees an advantage to the incumbents, and stifles innovation. Facebook may have had a good run over the last 15 years, but to think this is the pinnacle of technology and they can't be competed with is ludicrous. On the other hand, regulation would almost guarantee that, and forsake the creations of alternatives via legislation. What we'd be left with permanently is a FB + GOV run system, and that idea makes my skin crawl.

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I don't disregard the fact that we made choices that put un into the position of having to allow these corporations into our daily lives, but I also recognize that never in a million years can the general public have foreseen how insidious this would become and that even the most cynical technologists could not accurately predict the inevitable outcome with a loud enough voice or certainty to sway the general public.

I'm not giving them this much credit. They may hold sway, but I think the current laws regarding campaigns, and the election process should suffice if enforced properly. Make lying about stuff and generating fake news illegal, no need to trade in freedom/property rights for a little more security. I just don't think the legislation would be as effective as we imagine.

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I was never a Facebook user. In comparison to most, I hardly used Instagram. I'm as biased against them and platforms like them as you can reasonably be. I've done just about everything I can to expose what I'm seeing and plant the seeds of discussion to wake more people up to whats happening. I've taken more than reasonable steps to protect myself from these platforms, often at significant expense. With more money, I'd take even more precautions, but I can't afford it right now. Meanwhile, I'm forced to maintain at least some connection to this because I literally place myself at a profound disadvantage in many ways if I could actually cut it out of my life entirely. It's not about being inconvenienced by learning how to navigate the physical world without GPS and Google Maps, its about being able to participate in the modern economy within a segment that almost only exists and prospers within the network controlled by this handful of corporations. And further to that, as each day / month / year passes, there's fewer and fewer market segments that insulated from the reach of these same corporations.

You would have been at a even more pronounced disadvantage during the print only era, the post office used to shut authors/publishers down with ease. Same goes for Radio, you'd have even fewer choices to reach your audience. The TV era, forget about it, you'd have a few 3 letter networks and most likely could be blackballed by one, and then automatically blackballed by all if you didn't play by their rules. I think things are getting better, slowly, and we need to allow that process of decentralization to continue.

 

44 minutes ago, misteraven said:

As if it isn't obvious to anyone paying attention, I have colleagues in the industry that have given me details on how the new battlefield for these corporations isn't entertainment as some might believe with the consolidation of broadcast into a handful of streaming services, but rather, health care. In another couple years, the health care industry will be revolutionized with the same vigor and pervasiveness as we see today with social media. So they already middle man our personal relationships, control the flow of information, content, entertainment and knowledge, as well as the means to which we access all that, but soon they'll be intimately involved in health and 'well being'.

 

Orwell, probably the most well known cynical futurist, hardly scratched the surface of how bad all that shit would get.

Web 3.0 is the answer to this. The worse they act, the more incentive there will be driving the free market to come up with alternatives, that is, if we allow it to and don't bog the whole thing down with legislation in haste.

 

[Mercer]

I feel like I should further explain my last statement, by web 3.0 I mean the web integrated with blockchain technology allowing for complete decentralization of funding models.

 

Nothing to do with the "Symantec web" if you happen to google that. I'm describing an alternative like you'd upload a video, and drop some bitcoin for hosting it, and maybe even get paid bitcoin or Ethereum etc. based on said videos popularity thus making youtube obsolete.

 

 

[misteraven]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

IMO this type of belief in public ownership of private property is not only a lie used by dictators to help themselves to other people property, the public is always worse off under Socialist conditions.

I never claimed we should take away what they established or allow the state to take over. But likewise, you can't disregard that their largely in thier position of success due to the undue advantage as provided by the state.

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

The free market is a beautiful thing to me, I almost feel like it's been designed by an omnipotent deity.

Yeah, a truly free market. We don't have that. At best we have crony capitalism, but probably more accurate description is we have an oligarchy. We wouldn't being having this conversation if we could point to these entities as being individuals with great ideas, that chased the american dream fairly under free market conditions versus the obvious undue competitive advantage that they've built along side the state. Soon, it'll be hard to see where one stops and the other starts considering how deep in bed together they are.

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

Our country was founded by Jews, and Christians, and at the time the Ten Commandments from the old testament were probably the most beautiful expression of law they had known. Thus they tried to model the bill of rights, and legislation in genral after them.

Inaccurate. The majority of the founding fathers were Deists. For whatever reason, this is often seen as being under the umbrella of Christianity, but if you take the time to learn about it, you'll see that it has nothing to do with Christianity. Several where Christian, but then again several were agnostic or atheist. There wasn't any Jews, though Hamilton is sometimes attributed as such because he took up some of their cause. The Bill of Rights was pulled from a great many reference points, but the Ten Commandments was not notable amongst what influenced it.

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

The only thing I can say to this is if we legislate, then all following contenders for the "next facebook" etc. will have to follow these laws thus virtually guaranteeing the incumbent a massive advantage and monopoly.

Until the legislation is drafted, there's no telling. Could be as simple as making data collection and sharing unavailable by default and that under no circumstance can these companies collect or utilize any data affected by my account without my clear and concise authorization. Allow me to opt into a program in which I'm compensated clearly for the use of my profile data. That in itself would likely collapse their business model. I do not believe the average joe realizes to what extent their data is being collected and less so, how its being utilized and the consequences of that.

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

I'm not giving them this much credit. They may hold sway, but I think the current laws regarding campaigns, and the election process should suffice if enforced properly. Make lying about stuff and generating fake news illegal, no need to trade in freedom/property rights for a little more security. I just don't think the legislation would be as effective as we imagine.

Declaring what is and isn't fake news is probably one of the slipperiest slopes under this topic. And what do you mean not giving them that much credit? They're already affecting legislation and politics directly... Look what Bloomberg did in Virginia. At least he's overt about it. Now imagine Zuckerberg, who's worth like 5x what he is. Look at Bezos and his purchase of the Washington Post. What good reason would a savvy business man have getting involved with media publishing? Look at the progress and innovation in all his companies, except that one. Go back and watch the congressional hearing on how simply filtering messaging to specific demographics can affect the outcome of an election and that's just the most obvious shit. These guys are all playing 3D chess while those paying attention are playing checkers. Real issue is that most of the country aren't even aware or liukely care that a game is bing played so long as they can have a flat screen tv, a new iphone and the latest Jordans.

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

Web 3.0 is the answer to this. The worse they act, the more incentive there will be driving the free market to come up with alternatives, that is, if we allow it to and don't bog the whole thing down with legislation in haste.

I think you're giving society too much credit. Same way Anarchy or even Minarchy would likely take generations of turmoil to weak everyone off government (if even possible), I suspect it would take almost as long for the markets to correct and stabilize if you could wave a magic wand and extricate crony capitalism from the world.

 

The web should have already collapsed the education system, yet the majority of society still believes it makes sense to go into crushing, life long debt to get a piece of paper saying you're a professional at whatever. Perhaps technologies like block chain will affect the sweeping change we're hoping for, but we all know that the technology to secure free elections has been in place for a decade of longer, yet here we are still arguing about the integrity of our elections. Fuck man, we're still sitting around watching blatant corruption like HRC stealing the primary and Epstein dying in the most absurd of circumstances while in the national spotlight and beyond a bunch of entertaining memes, nothing will come of it. My thought is it's all unsustainable and will likely have the wheels fall off soon enough before there's a semblance of hope that maybe it can possibly be put back together in a way with a b it more integrity.

 

Sorry man, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple aren't just business in which we chose to buy wares or services from. These are corporations that exists largely above government, that continue to manipulate the law, if not rewrite them, mostly in shadow and with consequences we're only beginning to become aware of. As mentioned, its becoming increasingly difficult to opt out without dropping out of society and outside of all but the most niche or local markets, moving to the woods and living off the grid. I expect that trend to continue to the point that those that don't participate will be outliers that will be stigmatized by society and likely targeted and made examples of.

[misteraven]

Reminds me of how the train system in the USA was systematically dismantled by the automotive industry. Sure you can chose to not buy a car and keep riding the train as it becomes increasingly impossible to navigate the world as highways replace train routes. Maybe move your home and change your career and upset the entire direction of your life just to exercise your right to not drive a car. Never mind the underhanded way they accomplished all that and how government was complicit to their success with it. Like the situation we're discussing, that isn't the free market serving the will of the people.

[Kults]

Canada is planning on censoring social media 

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-inching-closer-to-reviving-section-13-the-controversial-hate-speech-law-repealed-in-2013/amp

[Mercer]

Damn, good points but I'm still not convinced. 

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I never claimed we should take away what they established or allow the state to take over. But likewise, you can't disregard that their largely in thier position of success due to the undue advantage as provided by the state.

 

Agreed, I was drawing a comparison to being annoyed by the imperfection of the free market, and opting for something worse (more government) with the best intentions much like Socialist thinking.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

Yeah, a truly free market. We don't have that. At best we have crony capitalism, but probably more accurate description is we have an oligarchy. We wouldn't being having this conversation if we could point to these entities as being individuals with great ideas, that chased the american dream fairly under free market conditions versus the obvious undue competitive advantage that they've built along side the state. Soon, it'll be hard to see where one stops and the other starts considering how deep in bed together they are.

Free market isn't exactly a black and white description of any market, and very subjective. I mean black markets may be free somewhat, but there's no market free of government influence. I agree with what your said here for the most part but assert moving towards a free(er) market is superior to moving away from one via increased  government regulation.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Inaccurate. The majority of the founding fathers were Deists. For whatever reason, this is often seen as being under the umbrella of Christianity, but if you take the time to learn about it, you'll see that it has nothing to do with Christianity. Several where Christian, but then again several were agnostic or atheist. There wasn't any Jews, though Hamilton is sometimes attributed as such because he took up some of their cause. The Bill of Rights was pulled from a great many reference points, but the Ten Commandments was not notable amongst what influenced it.

I suppose, but can guarantee Christianity, and Judaism played a massive role in influence the sentiments of early settlers to the new world, and the intellectual atmosphere during the first enlightenment. While the founders were unanimous in agreement on the separation of church and state, saying  they had little old testament influence is inaccurate. My theory of them modeling the structure of 1st, 2nd, 3rd amendments after the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments is mine alone and I've never read this anywhere else, so I'm sighting that theory straight from the source.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

Until the legislation is drafted, there's no telling. Could be as simple as making data collection and sharing unavailable by default and that under no circumstance can these companies collect or utilize any data affected by my account without my clear and concise authorization.

This is exactly what happens when you agree to the terms of service.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Allow me to opt into a program in which I'm compensated clearly for the use of my profile data. That in itself would likely collapse their business model. I do not believe the average joe realizes to what extent their data is being collected and less so, how its being utilized and the consequences of that.

Ignorance isn't a virtue, nor a good excuse for agreeing to something you don't understand. I'd argue that the vast majority of Facebook's users understand how Google, and Facebook's business model works, and opts into it voluntarily. There are few who don't know everything they do is being, analyzed, and monetized. Those that don't understand this are.... Well, we can't exactly design the world to work best for dimwits and just forsake those smart enough to make informed decisions.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Declaring what is and isn't fake news is probably one of the slipperiest slopes under this topic.

Agree, a different debate altogether, but you can guess which way I lean on this issue as well when it comes to government making these decisions for us.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

And what do you mean not giving them that much credit? They're already affecting legislation and politics directly... Look what Bloomberg did in Virginia. At least he's overt about it. Now imagine Zuckerberg, who's worth like 5x what he is. Look at Bezos and his purchase of the Washington Post. What good reason would a savvy business man have getting involved with media publishing? Look at the progress and innovation in all his companies, except that one.

This is nothing new, rich people have more money, thus more advantages than poor across almost everything from health care, to legal protections because they can afford it. Unfortunately, I think there's no such thing as equality, and trying to force everyone to be equal is a wasted effort. Some of us are better looking, smarter, work harder, or are luckier than others and no one person is the same as another. If not there'd be no need for a job interview. Again, what's the alternative to rich people owning newspapers, publishing, media of any kind? More government control? Government ownership? Communism? Not claiming the system is perfect by any measure, but rest assured the alternatives are clearly worse.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Go back and watch the congressional hearing on how simply filtering messaging to specific demographics can affect the outcome of an election and that's just the most obvious shit. These guys are all playing 3D chess while those paying attention are playing checkers. Real issue is that most of the country aren't even aware or liukely care that a game is bing played so long as they can have a flat screen tv, a new iphone and the latest Jordans.

 

I think you're giving society too much credit.

I'm not, I think a large percentage of people are dumb as fuck when it comes to their actions on social media. I just don't want to give up the liberty, and private property rights of their intellectual superiors that aren't retarded, by fucking up on Social media. Taking rights/options away from intelligent people in an effort to make the world idiot proof is counterproductive. I want access for everyone who can afford/earn it to cars that can go 200+ miles per hour, scary looking guns, unprotected pre-marital sex, gay shit if they want, drugs, gambling and all these other expressions of freedom we have in the United States. This includes the freedom to trade your privacy for free access to social media. If we design things focused on preventing stupid people from doing stupid shit, none of us would have anything fun to do. Doing stupid shit has been a life long passion of mine (and many others on 12oz) if we're being honest here. This is still a graffiti forum for the most part.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Same way Anarchy or even Minarchy would likely take generations of turmoil to weak everyone off government (if even possible), I suspect it would take almost as long for the markets to correct and stabilize if you could wave a magic wand and extricate crony capitalism from the world.

Disagree, a massive cut in taxes making all of us 30-50% more profitable (granted we'd have expenses like rights/law enforcement insurance, road tolls etc.) would be an economic boom. I don't think everything would collapse if we rolled it back. My guess is we'd adapt faster than most would think, at least hose of us willing to work. Those of us in cushy government jobs where we don't do shit but waste taxpayer money may have a tough time adapting. Also keep in mind I'm not suggesting diving into anarchy head first, Id' prefer we eased into it like a hot bath. /nohomo Although I'd love to debate this broader subject, I'll stick to Social Media Regulation for now.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

The web should have already collapsed the education system, yet the majority of society still believes it makes sense to go into crushing, life long debt to get a piece of paper saying you're a professional at whatever. Perhaps technologies like block chain will affect the sweeping change we're hoping for, but we all know that the technology to secure free elections has been in place for a decade of longer, yet here we are still arguing about the integrity of our elections. Fuck man, we're still sitting around watching blatant corruption like HRC stealing the primary and Epstein dying in the most absurd of circumstances while in the national spotlight and beyond a bunch of entertaining memes, nothing will come of it. My thought is it's all unsustainable and will likely have the wheels fall off soon enough before there's a semblance of hope that maybe it can possibly be put back together in a way with a b it more integrity.

The only thing I trust about people, is that their actions are always aligned to meet their own goals. I don't expect integrity or any system that relies fully on it. I prefer to trust the free market, which always aligns our interests for mutual benefit. Which is why politics is so damn harmful, they pretend the opposite is the case, and they're here strictly to serve our interests. Lies.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Sorry man, Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple aren't just business in which we chose to buy wares or services from.

Disagree, that's exactly what they are. If they weren't, we'd be listing off 4 other companies that were more successful right now. The fact these companies are chosen by consumers in general, (and us) more than others is the  consensus of the markets they operate in, and the value they provide individuals willing to part with funds or choose them. This is an undeniable.

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

These are corporations that exists largely above government, that continue to manipulate the law, if not rewrite them, mostly in shadow and with consequences we're only beginning to become aware of.

While much of what they do does carry with it massive influence, they're not above the law and are all subject to Federal, State, and Local laws. Congress calls Zuckerberg in to Testify, and I can't imaging Zuckerberg calling Senators/Congressmen into Facebook to grill them.

To say they're largely above the law is an exaggeration. They are in fact, above us in their scope of influence, but still subject to laws. IF the feds wanted to storm dat centers or take their URL away, they would. I stand by my statement that they (just like everyone else) are only acting in a way that serves their own interests.

 

For the most part they're at the mercy of our government overlords just like all the other companies. Sure they can influence regulations, but so could any of us potentially given the right resources and circumstances. They have to follow the rules they've been given and if not, they'll pay a price. Granted they have the means to defend themselves better than most small businesses and individuals, but I don't automatically demonize them for simply being successful, and gaining that influence. I don't even do that with politicians. I judge strictly based on NAP compliance/violations and as companies, I don't see any NAP violations on their part. I can't say the same for government, who is constantly aggressing towards the population with the threat of violence for not following an increasingly intrusive set of arbitrary rules they make up.

 

Seeing the immense sacrifices you've made for the last two decades for 12oz is proof enough for me. 12oz is yours, and yours alone. Pelosi wasn't there when the server bills came in year after year, Mitch McConnell was nowhere to be seen when developers wanted to get paid. Not a single user offered to pay a dime, or did anything other than contribute whatever they wanted at their own free will. Sure, we are the community here but you own 12oz. You don't want to take on the expense of doing X, then you don't. You don't want to allow X to be posted on 12oz then it isn't. 12oz would be much worse off if AOC and "The Squad" had admin/moderator access. IMO you're the best person to decide how 12oz serves it's community.

 

As it stands, I'd rather have you making all those decisions or delegating them to whomever you see fit. In fact, that's the main reason we're all here now. The same can be said (with much less enthusiasm) about how google has mastered their search function, facebook built a social media platform with the largest network effect, Amazon stoped millions of Americans from waiting in line next to inbreds in a walmart, and Apple built an intuitive OS that doesn't get digital aids every time you download illegal music, etc. The government doesn't build any of this shit, it can only stand in it's way and slow true innovation down.

 

 

4 minutes ago, misteraven said:

As mentioned, its becoming increasingly difficult to opt out without dropping out of society and outside of all but the most niche or local markets, moving to the woods and living off the grid. I expect that trend to continue to the point that those that don't participate will be outliers that will be stigmatized by society and likely targeted and made examples of.

This is true, but I don't think regulations, and more government influence will stop the advance of information technology's pervasiveness throughout society on nearly every level. We may get excited to hear a politician saying "we're going to stop X from doing Y" with this new legislation, but we all know Y is still going to happen regardless.