0
0

[–] nonservator [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I laugh at your downvote tears, El Goog shill.

0
0

[–] nonservator [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

One could say, "Forget FacebookGoogleTwitter, we shouldn't have to rely on them anyway." In an ideal world, maybe. But in this world, it's the same as saying "We don't need Amtrak to take a train to another city" when we know that Amtrak has replaced all other intercity train operators.

[...]

Leftists in the government are obsessed with regulating all products and services, essential or not. They'd like to regulate information as well - see the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality. Conservatives have always instinctively opposed that trend, guided by the principle, "Whatever the Left does, we must do the opposite." This kneejerk impulse to take the "diametrically opposite position" has often allowed the Left to toy with conservatives and lure them into absurd situations where they fought phantom causes. In part, due to such "diametrical" thinking, the anti-regulation conservatives withdrew themselves from the regulatory process, effectively giving the Left free reign in shaping government regulations.

[...]

Media giants may beg to differ and remind us of their status as private companies that can make their own internal rules. But if their main product is information, which has an existential value to our society, they can no more hide behind their private status than the landlords or mortgage bankers can.

0
1

[–] Split16 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

One could say, "Forget FacebookGoogleTwitter, we shouldn't have to rely on them anyway." In an ideal world, maybe. But in this world, it's the same as saying "We don't need Amtrak to take a train to another city" when we know that Amtrak has replaced all other intercity train operators.

You could take the bus.

Less pithily, this is a deranged argument because you have decided that the only viable way for your site(s) to be marketed is via social media. Why would you have this notion? Who has convinced you that social media is the end-all, be-all of human interaction? Who has convinced other humans that this is the case? Could it possibly be the social networks themselves? Could this not be how they sell themselves to investors? Are you one of the investors?

But if their main product is information

Their main product is information about you. The customers to whom they are selling this information are businesses which wish to advertise on their platform. Their product (users) using their service to advertise (share links to) sites that aren't paying them is costing them money. If you want to advertise on social media, offer to pay them to do so.

This is arguing that these private companies are large enough and monopolistic enough to count as a commons and therefore they should be forced to adhere to other commons-based laws like not censoring ideas on their platform. But the form of this argument gives the game away. You aren't ass-mad that someone can't copy and paste the text in one of your articles to a post on Facebook or that an egg avatar can't do the same in 280-character chunks on twitter, because those things can totally still happen. That's your ideas being shared.

No, you're ass-mad that links to your own (possibly revenue-generating) website can't be shared. You're saying "why should Facebook be the arbiter of how much money I'm allowed to get?" when Facebook is really telling you that they're the arbiter of how much competition for ad dollars they're willing to allow on their giant ad-dollar-generating platform.

The keyword is company. As in for-profit, publicly-traded company. They exist to make money. If you want them to provide links to your site (not your ideas) to their users, then the "advertise with us!" links aren't hard to find.