The entire value of social media companies is you - the user. And the globe-trotting moguls who own these companies have gotten very rich at all of our expense.
“Social media” is a bit of a misleading name. These are not public spaces, they are only social in the sense that a shopping mall is social. They are private spaces, and like malls, the owner should be liable for everything that happens there. They should be sued every time someone slips on a grape. Maybe there is one “tech-friendly” concession we can grant: they can be a public space if they are open-source.
It seems to me that the core foundational "DNA" of Substack is that every individual who believes they create value for others by the content they create (opinions, stories, discussions, art, whatever) now has the ability to bypass the traditional enterprise-centric economy and have others determine what that value is by just taking whats made free, or subscribing an annual fee that is very reasonable. It evolves to a sort of digital information barter economy. You pay for what you find valuable to you, and should expect others to pay you for what they find valuable about what you create. Before you know it, the universe of individuals that believes in this is making a significant part of their income by creating value for others and having others value them. Its like returning to local barter economies but in the digital information era in which the modes of communication are no longer a barrier. We can thus relegate the term "social media" to the archives of an intermediary period in which large companies exploited the activity of the individual, the individual thought they were just using a free forum, that ultimately collapsed in terms of any meaning because all those individuals were duped and then manipulated into losing control over their ability to see what is true, factual or thought through with any reason. Then a community like Substack came along and started with the assumption that anyone posting comments on anything should first and foremost think of themselves as a publisher of their own ideas...and combined that with a revolutionary business model that puts that enables anyone to try their hand at being a digital information craftsperson, whose value is determined by the marketplace of those seeking valuable information.
I was reading along, yup, yup, yup, no kidding, that’s right, yah, not left, centre or right … then I hit the phrase ‘fundamental right’ and thought to myself, well, that’s a very left notion. And I struggled from there on. Sure a fundamental right does work for left, centre and right, but at very different levels, left for all, centre for some, right for a few. Maybe it’s just me, but I was struck and derailed by that. Loved it all up to that point.
The fundamental aspect of justice is that it applies to everyone. That’s the rule of law. It goes back to the Magna Carta and it’s in bills of rights and constitutions. It’s often bent and sometimes broken but if you don’t have it than you can never have justice.
Oh, I agree. I get it. I don’t think King John did and the Magna Carta only dealt with the ‘fundamental rights’ of the nobles. Since Charles I democracy has been the vehicle for the spread of those rights down to the people. I think it’s important to take the point it wasn’t always so. And that those up the hierarchy would like to go back to King John’s time. Just because we have it now doesn’t mean it will always will be so.
“Social media” is a bit of a misleading name. These are not public spaces, they are only social in the sense that a shopping mall is social. They are private spaces, and like malls, the owner should be liable for everything that happens there. They should be sued every time someone slips on a grape. Maybe there is one “tech-friendly” concession we can grant: they can be a public space if they are open-source.
Instead, they have impunity, which is a guarantee of corruption.
It seems to me that the core foundational "DNA" of Substack is that every individual who believes they create value for others by the content they create (opinions, stories, discussions, art, whatever) now has the ability to bypass the traditional enterprise-centric economy and have others determine what that value is by just taking whats made free, or subscribing an annual fee that is very reasonable. It evolves to a sort of digital information barter economy. You pay for what you find valuable to you, and should expect others to pay you for what they find valuable about what you create. Before you know it, the universe of individuals that believes in this is making a significant part of their income by creating value for others and having others value them. Its like returning to local barter economies but in the digital information era in which the modes of communication are no longer a barrier. We can thus relegate the term "social media" to the archives of an intermediary period in which large companies exploited the activity of the individual, the individual thought they were just using a free forum, that ultimately collapsed in terms of any meaning because all those individuals were duped and then manipulated into losing control over their ability to see what is true, factual or thought through with any reason. Then a community like Substack came along and started with the assumption that anyone posting comments on anything should first and foremost think of themselves as a publisher of their own ideas...and combined that with a revolutionary business model that puts that enables anyone to try their hand at being a digital information craftsperson, whose value is determined by the marketplace of those seeking valuable information.
I’m with you. Let’s do it. Poilievre has framed any attempt to make social media more responsible in a number of strange negative ways.
I was reading along, yup, yup, yup, no kidding, that’s right, yah, not left, centre or right … then I hit the phrase ‘fundamental right’ and thought to myself, well, that’s a very left notion. And I struggled from there on. Sure a fundamental right does work for left, centre and right, but at very different levels, left for all, centre for some, right for a few. Maybe it’s just me, but I was struck and derailed by that. Loved it all up to that point.
The fundamental aspect of justice is that it applies to everyone. That’s the rule of law. It goes back to the Magna Carta and it’s in bills of rights and constitutions. It’s often bent and sometimes broken but if you don’t have it than you can never have justice.
Oh, I agree. I get it. I don’t think King John did and the Magna Carta only dealt with the ‘fundamental rights’ of the nobles. Since Charles I democracy has been the vehicle for the spread of those rights down to the people. I think it’s important to take the point it wasn’t always so. And that those up the hierarchy would like to go back to King John’s time. Just because we have it now doesn’t mean it will always will be so.