Facebook and a much like a garbage dump, not because it is full of other people’s evils but because, when everyone agrees something it has to be done on this, no one seems to know exactly what. What many (American) commentators have in common, however, is where they look for the answer: in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the interdependence of slow, progressive politics, while political activists politicians violated the destructive power of the economy in everything from oil to rail. . The use of antitrust protection on Facebook has been talked about to the point of death; so, too, he has the idea of Facebook as a social services-as a source of public accountability such as water and electricity.
The first issue in the debate is whether Facebook should be seen as a public service at all. WIRED journalist Gilad Edelman takes the view that it is not. Susan Crawford he also argues that it is not, or he should not, especially since (in his own words) he feels that the foundations he provides are not of much value to the people to be useful.
Some argue that Facebook is a public utility but does not agree with what it might mean. Dipayan Gosh, cha ku Harvard Business Review, he says it is, and the answer should be to oversee the company’s data management, integration, and marketing strategies and hate speech. This role is closely related to that of danah boyd, who decided to make Facebook a way to help back in 2012, is an important difference between Gosh’s view of social benefits; something to do instead of any other actions.
I think some Facebook activities are too important for me to see as part of the culture and for the company’s right response, say, unlimited litany of zuck-ups and put in controls. But the big problem is that treating Facebook as a public service does not just mean answering the question that it is useful and useful. that “people” should answer — and that is the big problem.
Tech companies love it claiming to be sophisticated, confusing, and bringing us an invisible form to date — but when it comes to political issues, Facebook and its problems are a thing of the past. Like, in the 19th century. Before the American people were revolutionized by the internet, they were also transformed by railways, power companies, water suppliers, and other new industries and equipment — all of which are highly confidential and highly stable, and ultimately, with great power. zandale.
The answer to the 19th century came in two forms: violation of authority, and reform. “Violation” was an anti-infidelity law, which saw oppressive rulers on their faces in an attempt to force the demise of their holding companies. The “reform” was for a time when monopolies were not, in and of themselves, a problem. Railways, electricity, water: There are some obvious advantages to people having this, as they all lose their useful value if the track gauge or electricity changes every 100 miles (or a hundred houses).
In that case, Louis Brandeis and a large group of Progressives instead promoted a “public example”. Companies and industries that had a “natural control” – in which centralized inclusion was part of the retail sector – were not violated but were instead forced to comply with various census laws and regulations.