We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why
theguardian.com
With Google's recent monopoly status being a topic a discussion recently. This article from 2017 argues that we should nationalize these platforms in the age of platform capitalism. Ahead of its time, in fact the author predicted the downfall of Ello.
You are viewing a single comment
Fuck nationalization of social media. Honestly, this is one of the worst ideas I’ve heard.
The idea that giving the government a monopoly on the biggest data hoarders is somehow better than having the capitalists own it is mind-boggling.
The government doesn’t need a warrant to search through its own data.
The last thing we need is to give the state more power over our lives, more insight into our lives, and more control over the narratives we learn.
Every time humans have centralized more power into fewer and fewer hands, nothing good comes from it. We need more decentralized forms of media, not more centralized forms.
If the government owns it, isn't it subject to FOIA and public records laws/disclosures?
FOIA is great and all, and so are public records laws and disclosure laws.
But the state is gonna state, and when push comes to shove, social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.
I’m not concerned about the ability to FOIA shit about Twitter or Facebook’s algorithm, as much as I’d like to know about how it targets the content slop to its users. I’m concerned about how it will consolidate power into fewer hands, and how state sponsored social media will be abused. And I don’t think FOIA would ever reveal that if it happened.
it already is that, or did you miss the stories about Biden administration officials meeting with Facebook, TikTok etc about "content moderation"?
hint: moderation is different from censorship
You are absolutely correct, I’m just worried about one less barrier.
Yes, but since most people for whatever reason believe that you can fight the state only by the rules the state makes, you won't be able to do anything about it.
They are doing this pretty intentionally. Tomorrow is always different from today. People have been complacent, while some other people perceptive of the future in a bad way have made plans for taking unprecedented power over societies.
You are saying this
as part of discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won't stop them. Only force will.
French political tradition and all that.
I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.
This is why I advocate for decentralizing power (and the dissolution of all hierarchies and hierarchic power structures). The last thing I want is a despot using the current mechanisms of power and centralize everything, and have such an absurd amount of power.
I agree. Every single movement that has gone against a component of the government required either violence, or backed, credible threats of it. The government will never reduce its power to the benefit of the people, even if that policy is popular.
There are issues with that position as well, as described best in chapter 38 of Tao Te Ching. Anarchy would be "doctrine of humanity" in that quote, while the current state of things would be "li" (which is bad), and the previous supposedly good state of things would be "justice".
I'm not familiar with taoism, and I do not understand the point you are trying to make. I've read the chapter on this site.
I think you are talking about this paragraph:
I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you saying that Li is Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(neo-Confucianism)), or in the quote I have, ritual? Are you saying I'm an advocate for Justice in the sense of this quote? I think you are either misunderstanding me (I know I am not understanding what you are saying since it is unclear), or ascribing a set of values to anarchism that doesn't line up with what I'm arguing in order to dismiss my argument.
To be fully clear, I'm going to elaborate on what I'm saying. I'm giving a simple cause and effect statement here, not some moral justification. When there is a liberatory movement that threatens the power structure that enforces hierarchy that oppresses people, those in power will use their position to make the movement, threatening tactics/techniques of, or other things done by the people of the movement illegal, necessitating breaking the law to continue. Working within the shifting bounds of law is insufficient.
It was a fuzzy thought about anything done by abstract ideal rules being a bad solution IRL.
Like sure, anarchism is fine, but if right now you are a group of honest people with some time-pressing threat, it may be better to do things the old-fashioned way and choose a leader for the time being.
About the original subject of this conversation - we were agreeing with each other.
No, you'd be an advocate for goodness, many people would be advocates for kindness, status quo 20 years ago would be justice, and ritual would be what we have now. Anyway, don't look too much into this, I just thought it fit. If I'm understanding it correctly, Tao Te Ching actually is supposed to be treated that carelessly, ha-ha.