Social media censorship roundup

[Luce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

*Why?

**Why?

Because the first guy to come up with a workable, economic solution dominates their end of the market, and competition is at best desultory.

So you have stand alone BBSs. Some generate revenue, some do not.

Then Facebook comes along. Facebook generates revenue while charging its users nothing at all. (Myspace was an earlier, failed attempt at this) Then they own an entire sector of human behavior, which they analyze and sell to outside interests.

Then MeWe came along, had a better platform, promised to stop the abuses and censorship, but there wasn't enough market share left for them to do much of anything at all...They lacked the financial muscle to compete with Facebook. Nobody on the planet has the financial muscle to compete with Facebook.

This has now been proven to be true, so Facebook does whatever they please, knowing that folks like MeWe will not unseat them in the foreseeable future. You have no realistic choice in the market, as a consumer.

Youtube has the exact same monopoly, for the exact same reasons.

And they're not going to come up with actual solutions to blindly censoring entire topics, because there is no market pressure for them to do so.

There are numerous offline examples of the same problem.

So the market is an aristocracy in fact, and a meritocracy only in theory.

[Luce]

Also worth mentioning: If a free market as described were possible then, by definition, that's what we would have, because any attempt to dislodge it would be derailed by market forces.

[Undertoad]

Actually most people demand censorship from their social media. (The advertisers definitely do.)

There is very little anger over the things I've pointed out here.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Actually most people demand censorship from their social media. (The advertisers definitely do.)

There is very little anger over the things I've pointed out here.

Most people will viciously squash anything that moves out of their comfort zone. This is hardly news.

[fargon]

I just heard about MeWe this morning.

[henry quirk]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeWe_(social_media)

Me, I never heard of 'em before Luce's mention of them up-thread.

I take wiki with a grain, but, if the piece is accurate, they don't seem so down & out as Luce portrayed 'em.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by fargon

I just heard about MeWe this morning.

They've been around for 9 years.

As a result of low/no traffic, they are effectively dark web.

ie, the people that go there now go there because they want to talk about things without being seen doing it.

[henry quirk]

"Why does it matter how it's foster, supported, or protected?"

Cuz free and managed are not synonymous.

#

"They cater to what people will put up with in exchange for pictures of cats."

And if the bulk or folks are satisfied with tradin' off info for cat videos, where's the problem?

#

"They did have a better service. Their attempts at advertising were buried alive, as they lacked the financial muscle to saturate non-social media outlets enough to penetrate the market."

Well, the wiki link paints a somewhat less bleak picture. As i say, though, i take wiki with a grain. Anyway, an uphill climb is not the same as 'no, you aren't allowed on the hill'.

#

"The first past the post has effectively a permanent monopoly. That's an aristocracy."

Ain't nuthin' permanent about a natural monopoly. It may last for generations but one innovation can topple it. And, no, you're misusing aristocracy. It's easier to lambaste 'em when you can paint them as privileged, but we both know that ain't the case.

Powerful? Yep. Protected? Mebbe. Aristocratic? No.

#

"It's just not a free market."

It's not, but not for the reasons you state.

#

"Choose freely."

And wisely.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Why does it matter how it's foster, supported, or protected?"

Cuz free and managed are not synonymous.

#

Just so we're clear, you only object to government interference in the market?

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Luce

Just so we're clear, you only object to government interference in the market?

When the big stick of gov is levied against, or used to to protect, someone in the economy (even with the best of intentions), this is rank interference that short circuits the market. Let buyers and sellers, in their endless, on-goin', transactions punish and reward. Take offenders to court, if you must, as last resort (let those decisions inform similar matters down the road [and keep the goddamned legislators under heel and away from the marketplace).

My standard is simple: Do not knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprive, in part or whole, the other guy of his life, liberty, or property, and you can do as you like (in the bedroom, in the church, in business).

Sell whatever you like, as you like, be honest about what it is you're sellin', make a million (if you can).

[fargon]

I would take that as a yes.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by fargon

I would take that as a yes.

👍🏻

[Luce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

👍🏻

But in our model (hell, in every model), there isn't any such thing as government interference, for the same reason privately-maintained monopolies don't matter.

By which I mean, the government is an intrinsic part of the market.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Luce

But in our model (hell, in every model), there isn't any such thing as government interference, for the same reason privately-maintained monopolies don't matter.

By which I mean, the government is an intrinsic part of the market.

If gov is an intrinsic part of the market (as regulator, for example [which is interference to my mind]) then the market is managed, not free.

And: I didn't say diddly about privately-maintained monopolies. I mentioned, in passing, natural monopolies

Would you like to know about natural monopolies and why they're superior to the artificial monopolies you get with managed markets?

I'll be glad to rant about it (I haven't had a good libertarian rant in a coon's age, so I'm well-primed).

[Luce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If gov is an intrinsic part of the market (as regulator, for example [which is interference to my mind]) then the market is managed, not free.

The government is not only a regulator, but a participant in the market.

I'll be glad to rant about it (I haven't had a good libertarian rant in a coon's age, so I'm well-primed).

Sorry, I've heard it before.