<story><title>Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says</title><url>https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-turkey-security-socialmedia/turkey-determined-to-control-social-media-platforms-erdogan-says-idUKKBN2425Y4</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>salmonfamine</author><text>I think we&amp;#x27;re encountering a fundamental conflict between an unregulated free market and a digital economy that doesn&amp;#x27;t have any notion of scarcity or cost. The old paradigm just doesn&amp;#x27;t fit. And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight. The fact that anyone on the so-called Left supports the rights of these corporations to wield that influence by appealing to laissez-faire principles -- (&amp;quot;they&amp;#x27;re private companies, they can do what the want!&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;If you don&amp;#x27;t like Twitter&amp;#x27;s policies you can go start your own site!&amp;quot;) -- is mind-boggling.&lt;p&gt;I think we need social media to operate as a non-profit like Wikipedia, and I think drastic action is the only way to do so. Building alternatives won&amp;#x27;t work. A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.</text></item><item><author>briefcomment</author><text>In a dictatorship, cracking down on social media is a no brainer.  But I think social media undermines democracies as well.&lt;p&gt;Social media vastly amplifies loud minorities.  Democracy assumes that the majority of people are reasonable, so majority rule will also be reasonable.  Loud minorities undermine majority rule.  Loud minorities have always existed,  but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring what the majority of the country actually wants.  This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.&lt;p&gt;Add to that the fact that social media is highly game-able and scalable, and you have small groups of people working against the majority of the country.&lt;p&gt;Social media is also a prime playground for international enemies.&lt;p&gt;In that light, I&amp;#x27;m moving away from the idea that all social media should be allowed, and seeing actions like this as something worth exploring.  I hate imposing restrictions, but social media is a strange and unbelievably influential paradigm, which needs to be handled &amp;quot;like a weapon instead of some toy&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>briefcomment</author><text>Lots of worthwhile points here.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight.&lt;p&gt;This is probably the biggest threat to democracy, and to 90% of the population</text></comment>
<story><title>Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says</title><url>https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-turkey-security-socialmedia/turkey-determined-to-control-social-media-platforms-erdogan-says-idUKKBN2425Y4</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>salmonfamine</author><text>I think we&amp;#x27;re encountering a fundamental conflict between an unregulated free market and a digital economy that doesn&amp;#x27;t have any notion of scarcity or cost. The old paradigm just doesn&amp;#x27;t fit. And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight. The fact that anyone on the so-called Left supports the rights of these corporations to wield that influence by appealing to laissez-faire principles -- (&amp;quot;they&amp;#x27;re private companies, they can do what the want!&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;If you don&amp;#x27;t like Twitter&amp;#x27;s policies you can go start your own site!&amp;quot;) -- is mind-boggling.&lt;p&gt;I think we need social media to operate as a non-profit like Wikipedia, and I think drastic action is the only way to do so. Building alternatives won&amp;#x27;t work. A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.</text></item><item><author>briefcomment</author><text>In a dictatorship, cracking down on social media is a no brainer.  But I think social media undermines democracies as well.&lt;p&gt;Social media vastly amplifies loud minorities.  Democracy assumes that the majority of people are reasonable, so majority rule will also be reasonable.  Loud minorities undermine majority rule.  Loud minorities have always existed,  but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring what the majority of the country actually wants.  This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.&lt;p&gt;Add to that the fact that social media is highly game-able and scalable, and you have small groups of people working against the majority of the country.&lt;p&gt;Social media is also a prime playground for international enemies.&lt;p&gt;In that light, I&amp;#x27;m moving away from the idea that all social media should be allowed, and seeing actions like this as something worth exploring.  I hate imposing restrictions, but social media is a strange and unbelievably influential paradigm, which needs to be handled &amp;quot;like a weapon instead of some toy&amp;quot;.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Hoasi</author><text>&amp;gt; A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.&lt;p&gt;I agree and would add that the same argument stands for the traditional press as well.</text></comment>