[governance] Monetising socialisation

[David Conrad]

Parminder,

> if you really think that no matter what be the level of market power involved

Strawman.

> (and facebook's extreme market power is so obvious)


The article you posted suggested some folks do not believe it too extreme.

> or how deeply public interest oriented a particular service is

Strawman.

> (again, there can be little doubt in this regard in case of a basic social networking platform),

There is plenty of doubt.

An alternative perspective: Facebook is a web-based application operated by a commercial company based in the US.  It is one of a myriad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites>) of similar applications, standing out only in their number of users and (as a result) a large amount of money (well, ok, and their propensity to frequently fold, spindle, and mutilate their privacy policies).

They are not a monopoly (as the article you posted proves).  They do not provide critical infrastructure.  As both you and I demonstrate, it is possible to live quite comfortably without their service.

Back in the mid- to late-90s, I remember folks made similar "basic service"-type claims of AOL, arguing it needed to be regulated. You don't hear that so much anymore. If you're going to propose a global regulatory regime to impose your will on a commercial company based in the US offering a web-based application, it might be worthwhile first determining whether or not (as a proctologist will tell you) "this too shall pass."

> the paradigm of 'individual choice' and the market is enough for all situation - we just do not ever require specific policies or regulation.

Strawman.

> BTW, would you in that case also oppose net neutrality regulation,

You'd first have to define what you mean by "net neutrality" before I could hazard a guess whether I'd support or oppose it.

> And what about regulating financial capital that so thoroughly ruined the world economy just a few years back? Can people just not stop using the telco or the bank they do not like rather than seek regulation?

Red herring.

> It is in this regard that I made a tentative construction of the problematique of the dangers of Facebook arbitrarily monetising everyday processes of socialising,     without any public interest oversight. If this does not outrage you, I will accept that viewpoint as well.


People voluntarily choose to allow Facebook to monetize their socialization. There is no requirement to use Facebook service. If their business practices outrage me, I choose not to use their service. Seems a much simpler approach than trying to devise a global regulatory regime to regulate the monetization of "everyday processes of socialization."

Regards,
-drc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150219/0e1eabfc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150219/0e1eabfc/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t