Slashdot Mirror
Regulate Facebook Like AIM (vice.com)
New submitter gooddogsgotoheaven shares a report from Motherboard arguing why the U.S. government should regulate Facebook like AIM: Sixteen years ago, the FCC approved a merger between American Online and Time Warner, but with several conditions. As part of the deal, AOL was required to make its web portal compatible with other chat apps. The government stopped AOL from building a closed system where everyone had to use AIM, meaning it had to adopt interoperability -- the ability to be compatible with other computer systems. The FCC required AOL to be compatible with at least one instant messaging rival immediately after the merger went through. Within six months, the FCC required AOL to make its portal compatible with at least two other rivals, or face penalties. The FCC's decision changed how we communicate with each other on the internet. By forcing AIM to make room for competition, a range of messaging apps and services, as well as social networks emerged. Instead of being limited to AIM, people who used AOL's portal could choose other platforms.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
I'd much rather the consumers stop using closed systems, and/or demanding interoperability than the government regulating it. I know this is a fantasy. It would be nice if the consumers had higher expectations of companies like AOL and Facebook. I'll get off my soap box now and go back to my coach with my beer..and get off my lawn.
Sent from my TARDIS
Reagan was the bottom of the barrel. Bush I was more of the same. Clinton was the bottom of a different barrel. Bush II tripped over the barrel. Obama poked his head out of the barrel. Trump has drilled through the bottom of the barrel and shows no signs of stopping.
I talked to FB and AOL user about this idea. This is how they reacted:
FB User: I like it.
AOL user: Me too
As the summary indicates, this requirement on AOL was part of a deal to allow a merger between Time-Warner and AOL. As far as I know, Facebook isn't looking to merge with anybody, so what would be the basis for dictating how they run their business?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
What kind of free market operates by force?
People use the term "free market" to mean two different things:
1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access.
2. A market free from regulation.
These two things are nearly opposites. The GPP is referring to #1. You are referring to #2. Hence the confusion.
It is best to avoid the term "free market" and instead say "competitive market" or "unregulated market" depending on what you mean, unless, of course, you intend to obfuscate.
People use the term "free market" to mean two different things
No, no they really don't.
Cellular carriers in the United States charge per message for SMS: 10 cents to send and 10 cents to receive.
Most modern US cellphone plans include texts for nothing. I know I haven't had to pay for text messages for at least 10 years, perhaps more.
MMS was a different story until I moved to an unlimited plan.
1. A market that is open to competition, where anyone can buy, and anyone can sell, all with equal access.
2. A market free from regulation.
That's the same damn definition.
Not at all. An unregulated market often will result in anticompetitive price fixing, cartels, fraud, and protection rackets.
I'm still using ICQ, and so is my Bulgarian pen pal!
Actually it is quite popular in eastern Europe.
Actually yes, I am familiar with how social networks work... familiar enough to know that they can go from king of the hill to nothing based on the fickle whims of what's cool. Myspace used to be that king of the hill. Then, one day, for some reason or another, Myspace became uncool. And in the space of a year everybody but everybody had left and signed up for this new network called Facebook. Before that? Tribe used to be where it was at. Then everyone left for Myspace. Before Tribe it was Friendster. Before Friendster, everyone who was anyone had a Livejournal.
Granted, Facebook has stayed at the top atypically long. But other than blocking the "pimp my page" CSS crap that made so many Myspace pages look like geocities throwbacks; it really offers no compelling functionality or intrinsic value that's not available elsewhere. One day, Zuck will wake up to see Facebook a burnt-out shell with nothing there but shitty bands trying to promote themselves, even shittier Zynga games, and marriage proposals from Malaysia.
Imagine all the people...
I didn't use myspace at all and knew no-one else making any use of it (beyond maybe one guy with a band), and at the time I worked in a tech job with techies and creative people who were all online all the time. Nowadays I don't know anyone who doesn't have a facebook account, even if they don't all go on often. I have no doubt that Facebook will lose its dominance at some point in the future, but 1) that could be a long time away given how ubiquitous it is and 2) we'll be no better off if everyone moves from one locked down platform to another.
There is simply no comparison between MySpace and the ubiquity of Facebook.
Except its not a playground anymore. Talking like that just makes you sound like the people in the 90s who thought the Internet was just a playground and would never take off. Facebook is way past the point where its just a playground.