If it’s a public good the government should run it, but I seriously doubt most people think of it like roads. We don’t even think of internet access as a utility.
Government financed and government run aren’t necessary the same thing. I wouldn’t want a government agency running social media for obvious reasons but a government giving out grants or the equivalent of a crown corp.
I think the fediverse could actually act as a very effective system of checks and balances. Each country could finance an instance that their citizens use while allowing the free flow of information from country to country that gives these platforms value in the first place. federation would mean the only truly effective censorship would be defederation which would at least be highly public.
But I agree, even in countries with effective governments it would be very hard to implement. But one can dream!
I wouldn’t want a government agency running social media for obvious reasons but a government giving out grants or the equivalent of a crown corp.
It just seems kind of weird to me the instinctive distrust of government for social media but complete acceptance of them for roads, physical mail, and other public services. Or maybe I’m just missing something. I mean, it’s not like the companies are showing amazing efficiency and results here.
This happened with our ambulance service - the volunteers dried up, and so we had to put it in our taxes. There was a donation push to get us to the next tax year, but then it’s something we all pay for to have an ambulance available.
propaganda. If I becomes A political dissonant they can’t really stop be using the roads. Physical mail is a crown corp where I am, they are funded by the government but the government can’t effect their day to day function, same with our state funded news org. It would be pretty bad if a rogue politician could give out an order to restrict the viability or content of the mail, like what happened with the CDC in America during the pandemic. In order for the same to happen to a crown corp you’d have to have a parliamentary vote, which would take months and involve a lot of public oversight. You’d need the same institutional checks on a new social media service too, lest they randomly or silently start censoring things.
The problem in the US is that the mail is kind of special, I just wish it wasn’t. If our government paid a company, it’d just be the same as us paying a company, and we’d still get ads, just Facebook or whoever would also get a huge government check. Not what I’d say a success or improvement.
Of course, that just says more about how bad the government is really. I just think charity (donations) is a horrible and unreliable way to run any sort of “needed service” (for a given definition of needed).
I was about to write something in my comment to the effect of, “but let’s not even talk about the government running it”. Could end up like PBS, could just as easily end up like USSR/North Korean/Chinese media. Imagine Reddit but, instead of spez, it’s Joseph McCarthy, or Donald Trump, with the power to identify and criminally sanction users.
with the power to identify and criminally sanction users.
I think in so far as people are in the jurisdiction of a given government, they generally can identify social media users already, and if they choose criminally sanction these people. In the US I’d argue the government would be far more bound by First Ammendment issues than any corporation. And you have far more redress against the government when they screw up than the current “you agree to binding arbitration” from companies. Which… honestly… says something crappy about our tort law and T&Cs allowed. My main point is that I don’t actually think social media or discussion boards are a public good. I think it should be federated like e-mail (and the fediverse) but otherwise you can choose the provider you like. This seems like the best option IMO.
Well, there’s having to put an unconstitutional demand violating the 1st/4th amendments on paper and sending it out to a company, and then there’s just being able to log in as the admin and look for the information directly. Anyway, when I say “public good”, I mean in a pretty loose sense, I prefer to see actual maintenance/management done by something like a non-profit rather than a gov agency.
Yea, except doesn’t Facebook etc often make it pretty easy - no demand, just pay us some fee and we’ll give you data? I mean, Google and Facebook are just selling the data. From what I recall hearing, the phone companies give away location data pretty similarly too. It’s not a constitutional issue if you “voluntarily” give data to a third party and they’re just willingly selling that - whether it’s to another company, individual or the government.
If it’s a public good the government should run it, but I seriously doubt most people think of it like roads. We don’t even think of internet access as a utility.
Government financed and government run aren’t necessary the same thing. I wouldn’t want a government agency running social media for obvious reasons but a government giving out grants or the equivalent of a crown corp.
I think the fediverse could actually act as a very effective system of checks and balances. Each country could finance an instance that their citizens use while allowing the free flow of information from country to country that gives these platforms value in the first place. federation would mean the only truly effective censorship would be defederation which would at least be highly public.
But I agree, even in countries with effective governments it would be very hard to implement. But one can dream!
It just seems kind of weird to me the instinctive distrust of government for social media but complete acceptance of them for roads, physical mail, and other public services. Or maybe I’m just missing something. I mean, it’s not like the companies are showing amazing efficiency and results here.
This happened with our ambulance service - the volunteers dried up, and so we had to put it in our taxes. There was a donation push to get us to the next tax year, but then it’s something we all pay for to have an ambulance available.
propaganda. If I becomes A political dissonant they can’t really stop be using the roads. Physical mail is a crown corp where I am, they are funded by the government but the government can’t effect their day to day function, same with our state funded news org. It would be pretty bad if a rogue politician could give out an order to restrict the viability or content of the mail, like what happened with the CDC in America during the pandemic. In order for the same to happen to a crown corp you’d have to have a parliamentary vote, which would take months and involve a lot of public oversight. You’d need the same institutional checks on a new social media service too, lest they randomly or silently start censoring things.
The problem in the US is that the mail is kind of special, I just wish it wasn’t. If our government paid a company, it’d just be the same as us paying a company, and we’d still get ads, just Facebook or whoever would also get a huge government check. Not what I’d say a success or improvement.
Of course, that just says more about how bad the government is really. I just think charity (donations) is a horrible and unreliable way to run any sort of “needed service” (for a given definition of needed).
I was about to write something in my comment to the effect of, “but let’s not even talk about the government running it”. Could end up like PBS, could just as easily end up like USSR/North Korean/Chinese media. Imagine Reddit but, instead of spez, it’s Joseph McCarthy, or Donald Trump, with the power to identify and criminally sanction users.
I think in so far as people are in the jurisdiction of a given government, they generally can identify social media users already, and if they choose criminally sanction these people. In the US I’d argue the government would be far more bound by First Ammendment issues than any corporation. And you have far more redress against the government when they screw up than the current “you agree to binding arbitration” from companies. Which… honestly… says something crappy about our tort law and T&Cs allowed. My main point is that I don’t actually think social media or discussion boards are a public good. I think it should be federated like e-mail (and the fediverse) but otherwise you can choose the provider you like. This seems like the best option IMO.
Well, there’s having to put an unconstitutional demand violating the 1st/4th amendments on paper and sending it out to a company, and then there’s just being able to log in as the admin and look for the information directly. Anyway, when I say “public good”, I mean in a pretty loose sense, I prefer to see actual maintenance/management done by something like a non-profit rather than a gov agency.
Yea, except doesn’t Facebook etc often make it pretty easy - no demand, just pay us some fee and we’ll give you data? I mean, Google and Facebook are just selling the data. From what I recall hearing, the phone companies give away location data pretty similarly too. It’s not a constitutional issue if you “voluntarily” give data to a third party and they’re just willingly selling that - whether it’s to another company, individual or the government.