People insinuating that Facebook should somehow be a guaranteed provider of critical emergency information for governments around the world have ditched all reasonable expectations of what a single private social media website is about. Facebook is not the Web, boomers. You sound like people who think the Internet Explorer icon is literally The Internet™.

@raucao human networks are not as easily replicated as the systems they operate through: it's why fedi isn't as big as twatter even if technologically superior.
Human networks of the size of Facebook should absolutely be put under State oversight.

@benis "Facebook has many users" is not an argument for forcing them to do anything for any government. It's a private website, and nobody is forced to use it.

@raucao the same goes for public utility companies, why the double standard? Draw your own water, shitlord

@benis Last I checked you didn't need Facebook to survive or get the news. It's not even a weak argument, but simply invalid.

@raucao you don't need public utilities either, you can install your own water well and use your own wood for heat and power. This is about avoiding effort replication.

@benis Yup, I can do that. And those companies are not required to give me service for free either.

@benis @raucao
No, that's completely the wrong 'solution'.
Governments should never rely and probably not even use these private platforms. If they do, then only to point to their own <site>.<gov>/<page> URL.

Likewise the banning of DJT from Twitter really was a non-event.
"Wheeehhh, Freedom of Speech at stake". There is a fucking room in the WhiteHouse where daily (?) press briefings are being held. And there's ofc

Trusted 3rd parties are security holes.

@benis @raucao
And that is?

What is the (cor)relation of human networks, FB and governments communication with its citizens according to you?

My central point is/was that FB should never be a prominent, let alone a critical part of the governments (communication) network.
As soon as you do, the/your gov makes itself a subject of a commercial enterprise.
And they (FB/YT/TW/etc) NEVER have your or your gov's interest at heart, only their own.

@FreePietje @raucao mine was that any natural monopoly should be gov't owned/steered because it brings democracy into an undemocratic machine which affects their lives in a big way

@benis @raucao
There is no natural monopoly at play here, only network effects.
FB paid $16b for WhatsApp not because their product was so insanely good, but bc they had the network effect.

When govs communicates to their citizens through FB, they strengthen that network effect.

If everyone actually does #deletefacebook, FB is worth nothing. Remember MySpace? The same can (and should) happen to FB.
If everyone leaves WA for (f.e.) Signal, WA is worth nothing.

@FreePietje @raucao this just stifles innovation. Facebook allows for instant massive communications, there is no reason why it should be destroyed due to its management's incompetence rather than put under public control

@benis @raucao
Their management is extremely competent. The whole problem is that their goals are detrimental to society, but holy fuck is it profitable!

And really, what innovation? Apart from all the psyops that they 'developed' to be used against its users.

@FreePietje @raucao they're incompetent because their efficiency at an evil activity put their business in jeopardy. don't conflate competence and efficiency.
@benis @FreePietje @raucao If they stopped trying to manipulate people and collect massive amounts of personal data, it'd be a start. Google plus wasn't bad disregarding the whole youtube/gmail integration, with the obvious exception of the manipulating people or collecting personal data bits since it was a google product.

@Neidhardt @benis @raucao
That's abandoning their entire business model, so that'll never happen.

But even if they would do that, the government should still not rely on them for (critical) communication. Their communication infrastructure should be completely under their own control.

@FreePietje @benis @raucao I mean i'd never actually expect them to do so, but in any other sector, doing so would be controversial or even straight up illegal (imagine someone gathering and storing medical data and targeting ads based on)

I think for government related info, they should have their own server/platforms, but they could use social media networks as the next relay providing the original message still exists on government controlled servers, but it should include any platforms with a notable % of market share, but only use platforms that can be trusted to properly publish and distribute content.

I'm pretty certain some US politicians use gab, maybe official updates should be posted there too?

@Neidhardt @benis @raucao
Why do 'you'/others keep insisting that critical information *should* be published on a company's private platform?

My point is:
(posting *links* on those platforms to a gov website with the info is ok I guess)
Whether is FB or Gab or YT or Twitter or whatever, is irrelevant. They all should be disqualified

From OP:
"Facebook is not the Web, boomers. You sound like people who think the Internet Explorer icon is literally The Internet™"

@FreePietje @Neidhardt @raucao I'm only arguing for time critical information, not sensitive information, like public service announcements or what have you

@raucao I'm personally in favor of ISP injecting such critcal broadcasts into our networks. I'd also like to keep the standard cell phone notifications and radio and TV broadcasts for such stuff.

Unfortunately, many younger than boomers have similar misconceptions about the Net and think Google et al are the Internet.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!