The author seems to be filled with a sense of “knight-in-shining-armor-ism.” If Facebook’s actions really are a problem to most people, then most people would stop using it.
He calls Zuckerberg a "pope-emperor" of Facebook's users, but that's because the users choose to give him power. If the users stop choosing to give him power, he loses it.
A regulation like that has to be examined for the incentives it creates, not just the goal. If companies are forced to disclose research that involves customer or public harm, they will probably just stop doing the research, or fabricate false results. Thus, information is lost rather than disclosed. No companies want to say “our product is harmful to our customers.”
Thank you for sharing the link. I like the idea of standardization among smaller social media platforms. Basically, the success of a platform built on ActivityPub becomes more tied to the success of ALL platforms built on ActivityPub.
The argument was that Facebook is neutral as a platform. Similar to the internet, it serves all kinds of content. Some of the content is good, and some is bad. That doesn't necessarily mean the platform is good or bad.
An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
Digital advertising is much more accessible for the small fish too. If a business has a Facebook presence, $10/day can get a campaign going, and scaling it up is trivial.
This article is just trying to sell the reader on the "Rare Breed" idea. For every successful "Rare Breed," there are nine who failed. I say let the companies decide who they want to employ.
How does YouTube separate content presented as fact vs content presented as opinion? False facts is one thing, but what if someone is just hesitant about vaccine safety?
Religion generally claims to offer salvation. Of course, not all people believe that. However, that is probably its biggest difference from any secular organization.
I have a problem with the way the author frames social media. I seem to not clearly fall into either the observer or validator camp. I generally use social media as a way to try to add value to others through comments. I care less about the actual content and more about the discussion around the content. Thus, a lot of the author’s points are irrelevant to me because I see social media as an uplifting, positive thing. Why would I then want it gone from my life?