Social media censorship roundup

[Luce]

So maybe the free market isn't as free as it sounds.

[henry quirk]

😕

[Luce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

😕

A free market has never existed and cannot exist, for the exact same reason that communism doesn't work in practice.

This social media weirdness is a prime example of this.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Luce

*A free market has never existed and cannot exist, for the exact same reason that **communism doesn't work in practice.

This social media weirdness is a prime example of this.

*Why?

**Why?

[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.

[henry quirk]

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

As long as the monopoly isn't fostered, supported, or protected (or opposed) by the the big stick of government, why is this a problem? And how is this a negation of the free market? Fortune favors the bold.

#

"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."

I think they successfully cater to to what folks want.

If folks don't want their info sold, they can choose to not participate (don't use facebook).

If facebook doesn't lie to their customers, then what's the problem?

If they do lie: hold them to account, or stop associating with 'em.

#

"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."

It wasn't a lack of an infinitely fluid market (share), it was a lack of successful marketing. They didn't advertise themselves well or enough. If they had, and if indeed they had a better service, then they shoulda succeeded.

This is how free competition works. The fairness is in the ability to start the business, not in some guarantee of success. That is: the ant isn't prohibited from goin' up against the anteater, but his success or failure is entirely on him.

#

"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."

If customers are satisfied, or are not entirely displeased, with the service, and if no one else is steppin' up with a better product and successful marketing, then where's the complaint? How has the free market been short circuited?

#

"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."

Exactly. If the bulk of customers aren't particularly bothered by bias or advertising or censoring (which it really isn't), facebook won't change a thing. Why should they?

#

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

A free market is nuthin' but folks transactin' freely (aristocracy and meritocracy have nuthin' to do with it).

Reality is: we don't have a free market (except on the local level, sometimes) cuz our employees favor some and restrict others. They monkey around with supply and demand.

[Luce]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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

As long as the monopoly isn't fostered, supported, or protected (or opposed) by the the big stick of government, why is this a problem? And how is this a negation of the free market? Fortune favors the bold.

#

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

"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."

I think they successfully cater to to what folks want.

If folks don't want their info sold, they can choose to not participate (don't use facebook).

If facebook doesn't lie to their customers, then what's the problem?

If they do lie: hold them to account, or stop associating with 'em.

#

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

"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."

It wasn't a lack of an infinitely fluid market (share), it was a lack of successful marketing. They didn't advertise themselves well or enough. If they had, and if indeed they had a better service, then they shoulda succeeded.

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.

This is how free competition works. The fairness is in the ability to start the business, not in some guarantee of success. That is: the ant isn't prohibited from goin' up against the anteater, but his success or failure is entirely on him.

#

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

If customers are satisfied, or are not entirely displeased, with the service, and if no one else is steppin' up with a better product and successful marketing, then where's the complaint? How has the free market been short circuited?

#

It hasn't. It's just not a free market.

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

A free market is nuthin' but folks transactin' freely (aristocracy and meritocracy have nuthin' to do with it).

You have one choice. Choose freely.