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.

121 points

The government doesn’t need a warrant to browse data that it’s already in possession of. Food for thought.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

This

Exactly this

The government doesn’t need to know my search habits without a warrant

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Maybe not a warrant, and IANAL, but government agencies aren’t necessarily at liberty to share information amongst themselves. For instance, IRS needs a court order to share returns with law enforcement (IRC Section 6103(i)(1)).

But yeah…this seems like maybe not a super great solution…

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Sounds like it really shouldn’t have possession of that, although my sympathy is limited for fools who post their crimes on the Facebook

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Good thing they already possess it all via realtime backdoors into every major tech company. The only thing that would change, is the (im)plausible deniability.

I agree, though. We’re all in danger.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They also don’t need a warrant to browse data that companies just give them freely. The government can often easily get your data without a warrant if it’s stored by a megacorporation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

Note:

This article is more than 6 years old

permalink
report
reply
59 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

If the government owns it, isn’t it subject to FOIA and public records laws/disclosures?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

social media will be another tool to manufacture consent, break up movements, and preserve itself over the interest of the governed.

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

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.

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

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”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
*

Oooooorrr…Let’s just break them up like we should have done a long time ago.

permalink
report
reply
7 points
*

Or both!

edit: My enthusiasm was well meant but misplaced. On further consideration, I don’t want government to control social media.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah I don’t want government or private monopolies. Competition in an open, well regulated market seems better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Okay, which nation gets them?

permalink
report
reply
11 points

Can we go with Egypt? I feel like they should get some more time in the history books.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 543K

    Comments