Read on Twitter
This is great. It puts into words what I have been grappling with and failing to express well.
We know we have a new phenomena in social media and the attendant algorithmic, adtech, and other power centres that grew up around it and the data collection and processing enabled https://twitter.com/robertsharp59/status/1348242810361802758
We know we have a new phenomena in social media and the attendant algorithmic, adtech, and other power centres that grew up around it and the data collection and processing enabled https://twitter.com/robertsharp59/status/1348242810361802758
The market won’t produce fairness and sufficiently limit harm caused by asymmetric reach, artificially accelerated spread, silo atomisation and isolation, and resulting ability to influence at scale.
A devastating power imbalance between those who can and cannot pay to play
A devastating power imbalance between those who can and cannot pay to play
What it does not do is describe what independent appeal might look like, but is that a mystery?
There are rules for free speech and laws about incitement to violence. There are human rights and antitrust laws to prevent societally harmful concentration of power.
There are rules for free speech and laws about incitement to violence. There are human rights and antitrust laws to prevent societally harmful concentration of power.
We also (in US and IUK) have dire histories of passing excessive population-pleasing laws when threats loom large instead checking design and effective operation of existing ones.
e.g. Brexit and deeply concerning moves to devalue the Human Rights Act and Data Protections
e.g. Brexit and deeply concerning moves to devalue the Human Rights Act and Data Protections
The bottom line, inherent to the post, is whether we want platforms to have this much influence.
If we do, how do we stop that being abused? It is not appropriate to have the latest board and investors decide on the tolerable amount of society shaping power patrons can purchase
If we do, how do we stop that being abused? It is not appropriate to have the latest board and investors decide on the tolerable amount of society shaping power patrons can purchase
If not their board and investors (plus the few others with enough international influence), then who?
Who sets benchmarks for harm and power?
That puts rule writers, enforcers, and those who overtly or covertly force exceptions in the driving seat.
Who sets benchmarks for harm and power?
That puts rule writers, enforcers, and those who overtly or covertly force exceptions in the driving seat.
That’s the end of my basic problem statements, with a distinct lack of solutions. For those ideas I’ll defer to @doctorow.
This is for those who like Door A: Antitrust, cos it’s too late for reform with symptom focused rules, and trusting a tech pinkie promise to do better
This is for those who like Door A: Antitrust, cos it’s too late for reform with symptom focused rules, and trusting a tech pinkie promise to do better
Here’s the most recent related thread of his https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1347996799642976256
