We need to nationalise Google, Facebook and Amazon. Here’s why

That's not the kind of data they're looking for, if you post it somewhere publicly available they already have that without a warrant or anything. The kind of data to be worried about is the kind that those companies collect about where you travel and when, and what kind of people you talk to through email or private messages. Even if you don't think there's anything incriminating in there, law enforcement loves to collect evidence that they think can be used to pin any crime on anybody, even if they don't know what that crime is exactly.

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.

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.

I agree. As an anarchist, I do not think following whatever rules the state makes will ever be sufficient for achieving any liberatory goals.

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.

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.

You are saying this [cut quote about my advocacy of decentralization] as part of a discussion, but they are not discussing this with us. Public opinion won’t stop them. Only force will.

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.

One very much agrees, the ideals of socialism are certainly interesting. The current model is a bit of a joke, but it is the world we live in, and we have to shift from the status quo if strive towards other ways of doing things.

But moreover, if the system isn't owned by an organized body whose members chosen by the people. Then who owns it? Who operates it? Who makes the calls on what decisions ought to be made? The people can demand change, but someone needs to heed that change and delegate workers to do the change.

Modern governments (mainly democracies), in THEORY are supposed be a representative of the people. The people vote for politicians that supposedly want the same they do. Law is written, bodies are created and demolished and so the wheels of society spin.

Problem is that accumulation of wealth opens the door by buying the mouths of democracy. If you have friends in mass media, half the work is already done. Humans are lazy and unlikely to act upon politics unless they are directly threatened (and even then, not that frequently)

Again, I agree. It's just hard to picture a different world. Power generally works best when it's distributed, but how exactly it's destributed is critically important, as well as the mechanisms that ensure that it its purpose is not so easily perverted.

I didn't put anybody in charge. I could theoretically employ them. They are employees.

When someone wants trust, they are the last person to be trusted.

I obviously don't choose much.

First, because an anonymous vote where you can vote only for one candidate, not even against. Something similar to likes\dislikes would make more sense, but with each voter getting, say, the amount of likes equal to floor of 1/3 choices in the ballot, and the same amount of dislikes.

Second, because I live in Russia.

I'd say computers with internet have done to regulations of mass media the same thing that early computers have done to encryption.

They allow platforms\businesses\whoever to make systems of enormous complexity, easily incompatible and with intentional gray zones for laws here and there, and to do that fast and in enormous quantities.

For example, with algorithmic recommendations and who's responsible.

What in the world before the Internet would be generally contained to real physical objects and procedures hard to change that fast, after it became wholly models defined by computer programs. When Facebook reads your messages, they don't open any physical envelope and they don't even do something at a telephone station.

There's an explosion of facts legal systems have not been designed to deal with. As we've all seen with the way they react to it.

Nationalizing ensures everyone gets fair and equal access and prevents a capitalist monopoly.

Some people live with a regulated market and think that it won't lead to monopoly no matter what.

Some people live without seeing what nationalization does and think that it will be something fair and equal.

Let's generally avoid being so certain about things we haven't seen.

It’s so easy to just say “they” and sound scary it’s harder to actually figure out why some solutions are good and others bad without resorting to a mysterious malevolent entity.

There's nothing mysterious in this.

If hard narcotics are highly illegal, but also still generally available in your country for those who seek, then somebody does that work with protection from sufficiently powerful people.

If prostitution is illegal in your country, then the same.

And so on and so forth.

Now we are talking about the government control over a large chunk of your communications. There's no need to sound scary, this is bullshit and you are either a shill or very inexperienced.

Government bureaucracy. Social networks should be as close to direct representation of the people as we can get, like the fediverse.

I'd say that's overly expensive and complex. Since almost everything with these companies is about the ad selling, harvesting and using the data and tieing the users attention. The state would adopt something that is mostly concerned with that. And they'd struggle with their role influencing political views with the algorithms that now belog to them. And it'd be pretty much an Orwellian dystopia once the state starts getting into the advertisement business. What we consider a "product", the social media platform or mail service is just a means to have users. It's a tiny fraction of what these companies do. And it's an expense to them, not what they make money with.

I think it's far easier and quicker to start fresh. Have something that has good features baked in from the start. And not adapt a business, settle >90% of what it's about and change the product 180 degrees so it's about something entirely different. I mean everything Google programms is with the idea in mind to sell ads. They'd need to change pretty much everything about that program code. And we already have some good alternatives to some things. And the EU for example already funds some Free Software. I think if we were to educate people, regulate online services in a good way and offer proper alternatives, the rest follows automatically. IMO nationalising an ad selling business comes with severe issues, as I lined out earlier. And if we did it over, we could also learn from the past and address issues like filter bubbles, unhealthy behaviour, being overly addictive and whatever is baked in to the current generation of social media and almost impossible to get rid of.

Right. But do you realise how high they would have to be to nationalise multiple trillion dollar companies?

Best case it's gonna get bloated and beurocratic (any monopoly, but especially state run ones) and if it's government owned they'll use the power of the government to prevent competition (more than a private monopoly which will still try but won't have as much power to do so).

Worst case it goes off the rails and the service is unavailable/unusable. If it's anything important - say the Soviet's food production - anybody who needs that service doesn't get it.

One has the power of corporate lawyers to enforce it's will, one has an army and a prison system to enforce it's will.

Presumably, they are referring to literally every other time a government seized control of the media. This isn't exactly the same, but it's fairly close to some of what happened in the early stages of some of those cases.