
Facebook and Google Are Actually Net States. And They Rule the World - kensai
https://www.wired.com/story/net-states-rule-the-world-we-need-to-recognize-their-power/?mbid=social_fb
======
jasode
The submitted title is: _" Facebook and Google Are Actually Net States. And
They Rule the World "_.

The actual article title is: _" Net States Rule The World; We Need To
Recognize Their Power"_

That 2nd clause after the semicolon is not a throwaway line -- it's the
essence of her essay.

(EDIT: I originally thought the submitter editorialized the title but I now
notice that the html meta tags have the same misleading title: _" <title data-
react-helmet="true">Facebook and Google Are Actually &#x27;Net States.&#x27;
And They Rule the World | WIRED</title>"_)

The editorialized title makes it sound like the author _criticizes_ Google and
Facebook like a million previous articles have already done.

However, if one actually reads the article, her main thesis is for governments
to use Google/Facebook's influence as a force for positive change. She says a
hearts & minds type of campaign by _spreading ideas_ is more effective than
military drones and missiles. Since Google/Facebook are the current rulers of
information, governmenments should explicitly recognize their power and use
them for winning the new battle of ideas. (E.g. she wrote: _" The world needs
net-states in order to defeat the non-states."_)

(I also appreciate the sibling comment from _adventured_ but author Alexis
Wichowski's background[1] makes it looks like she's aware of the history of
transnationals. Her essay is about proactively _harnessing internet giants '
power to spread ideas_ as opposed to overstating their power compared to
historical transnationals.)

[1] [https://sipa.columbia.edu/faculty-research/faculty-
directory...](https://sipa.columbia.edu/faculty-research/faculty-
directory/alexis-wichowski-0)

~~~
igravious
In my opinion the scarcest human resource is _nuance_. So many heated breaths
of online guff would evaporate in the afternoon sunlight if every netizen took
a little more care when editorialising.

A genuine follow-up question is, "What is statehood?" By any accepted
definition transnational corporations are not states. Even if you modify the
moniker with the prefix net- it still feels wrong to me.

There are very few senses in which the "citizens" of Facebook share a common
identity purely because they inhabit Facebooklandia. If anything, the citizens
of Facebook are its shareholders, bosses, and employees. We can see this
because corporate decisions most often intersect the desires and intentions of
those three stakeholders rather than the desires of the customers. Also, even
though it is a cliché beaten to death, unless you are paying for a service you
are not the customer, you are at best a "user", at worst a productised entity.

Advertisers hold much sway in what content gets shown and produced.

Having said that, I agree with the author's thesis. If you want to reach
hearts and minds go to where their eyeballs are – go to where they are plugged
into the information streams.

I think we should reserve the term net-state for online/virtual sovereign
groups of individuals and potentially bots that have some form of self-
governance.

~~~
danarmak
Facebook is not a _democratic_ net-state. Its users are nevertheless its
_netizens_. Comparing it to a traditional state, you might say the
shareholders are the nobility, employees are the privileged trade and crafts
guilds, and users are the taxed serfs.

~~~
igravious
I like how you think but to my mind it is still a bit of a stretch.

Facebook can't raise taxes, monopolise the use of force, grant children of its
netizens Facebook netizenship, and so forth.

I'm not saying that there never could exist a state that exists purely in the
online realm – in fact, technologies like Ethereum makes me think we're not
far off from net-states existing.

~~~
danarmak
Facebook can in fact do most of the things you mention.

Their 'taxing' of netizens takes several forms, mainly displaying ads and
collecting and selling information about them. Both of these are profitable to
Facebook (or they wouldn't do them), and injurious to users (in lost privacy
and attention). Facebook can choose how much of it they do; they balance
taxation (profits) with user retention (emigration).

Facebook have a monopoly on many kinds of force on their platform. They and
only they can remove or block content and ban accounts. And unlike other
states, there are no courts, no constitution, and no way for rebels to gain
these powers for themselves by force.

The question of granting netizenship is less important, because Facebook
encourages immigration: they'd love all the world to be their netizens! But
they can exile people they don't like, or block them from joining.

Facebook also have partial control of the presses in their country and of the
commerce at its borders (in- and out-going links).

~~~
gwright
There may be an analogy here but I think you are just introducing confusion by
trying to equate ad revenues with "taxes" and customer churn with
"emigration".

Facebook's business practices aren't a "monopoly" in any usual sense of the
word and so once again it is just making it difficult to discuss the
associated concerns/problems by expanding the meaning of "monopoly".

------
dragonwriter
No, they aren't, and no, they don't. Evidence: Facebook and Google cannot
summon actual governments with compulsory process and subject them to inquiry,
OTOH, the reverse can and does occur.

The EU doesn't submit to decisions of Google regulators, the reverse can and
does happen.

Facebook and Google are multinational corporations with considerable
influence, and moreover through which other (including state) actors exert
considerable influence. But they aren't anything like states, and they don't
do anything like ruling the world.

Also, the source headline doesbt mention Facebook and Google, and both the HN
and source headline are clickbait because the actual article doesn't support
the conclusion that what it identifies as “net states” rule the world. It
mostly argues that they are a new significant kind of actor, by doesn't really
provide a meaningful differentiation between them and international non-state
actors of the past, nor a meaningful way in which Anonymous and Google are
similar to each other. They've invented a nonsense category, attributed false
attributes to it in the article, and overstated even that in the headline.

~~~
yeukhon
This article argues how many people’s lives are now depending on and living in
these virtual online platforms such that we are forming a society there.

It doesn’t rule the world in the same sense as a government on earth. But
every move FB and Google make can impact millions’ lives. They don’t invade
your home and arrest you, but they can shut down your account. Google can
disable your entire Google Account and then you lose years worth of data (this
happened recently a few months ago).

Instead of marching on the street to protest, users are now sharing stories
and their opinions through hashtags and sharing posts with their friends. They
own your data now. They own your lives. They learn enough about you they can
lure you into buying products. Instead of shaming another human being with a
physical sign like Da Zi Bao (Big-character poster in the 50’s in China), we
can gang up on an individual in the comment section. Keyboard warrior, huh?
Their powerful algorithms can regulate and determine what we get to see and
when we get to see. So many people are “being educated” on the Internet; there
are the good stuff like Cousera and edX, and there are fake news outlets). We
are grooming a whole new society in the cloud. Instead of taxing your money on
a regular basis, they tax your time and then gets revenue back every time you
are online and whenever you shop. Instead of sightseeing a new building,
people are excited about new features rolling out.

How are the above not evidence of forming a new kind of civilization? Every
organization is itself a “government”. Someone at the top is making decisions
for you.

------
aaron-lebo
Interesting. Net-states is a useful term, but it might be useful to not make
too strong a separation between them and all of the multinational corporations
that came before. The Dutch East India Company, for example. Multinational
corporations have always been little non-democratic kingdoms. It's my
understanding that our modern view of sovereign states is due to the Peace of
Westphalia, so maybe in some sense we are just reverting to the norm where
states don't have all the power. Also, even with separate states, families
like the Hapsburgs did really rule the world in ways Facebook never can.

Finally, the US (and other superpowers) have historically struggled in places
where they don't have boots on the ground. It's too hard to uproot local
traditions and you don't really have a base of support. These net-states have
an even weaker claim to power. If ISIS can wage a guerrilla war with limited
physical resources (and a much greater power differential vs the US), anyone
can take down Facebook or Google. They are a massive, slow-moving target that
is already under attack.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
state_actor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor)

~~~
chillingeffect
Agreed. The history of power is church->liberal democracies and
republics->corporations.

The net-state is a great term! but it refers to the _medium_ through which the
corporate state is projecting power, akin to the social contracts and armies
of the papal and liberal states.

We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states. One
that our liberal institutions can defend.

~~~
danarmak
> We definitely need a bill of rights and constitution under the net-states.
> One that our liberal institutions can defend.

A constitution, and institutions that may uphold it, would be internal and
specific to a particular net-state. Just like with real states, they can't be
enforced on a net-state from outside except by extreme use of force.

This is a good thing: I don't want a single Net-wide constitution for all
present and future net-states, because I don't trust any single body to write
or enforce it! Variation between net-states is broadly good, as long as
emigration is easy.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "our liberal institutions", but if you mean
"our US non-net liberal institutions", then as someone who's not a US citizen
I don't want them to have power over me.

------
Synaesthesia
They are corporations and we need to look at how corporations have too much
influence on the world, and are increasingly concentrated centres of power,
essentially unaccountable to the public.

~~~
nsebban
Definitely. And it would also help "real" states if they started to play nice,
by paying their taxes where they're due.

But I think the over-the-top tax optimisation is actually what will ultimately
cause them to lose their power (aka boycott by users, huge financial penalties
from "real" states, or break-into-pieces scenario a-la-Standard-Oil) someday.

~~~
dageshi
I'll tell you why such a breakup will probably never happen. Break those
companies up and the individual services they offer will probably end up being
worse than what the combined entity could offer. Couple that with large
companies who effectively do the same thing in protected markets (China)
who'll use the opportunity expand into the rest of the world and you'll end up
in a situation where you neutered the companies you have some control over in
order to open the playing field to companies you don't.

------
uoaei
These "net-states" are looking less and less like independent actors in the
political sphere and more like arms by which nation-states can reach into the
cultural sphere and influence conduct and opinion as well as put their finger
on the pulse of the public sentiment, even targeting the communications of
individual people regardless of whose citizens they happen to be. Net-states
are unique compared to traditional media companies in that they have a far
easier time crossing national boundaries. Where before Hollywood or the BBC
needed a dominant share in the market of foreign countries to spread the
ideals of their host countries, net-states act more like portals to any region
with an internet connection with little holding it back.

------
hacknat
It is much easier to opt out of the Facebook “Net State” than the Google one,
IMO. I have never been on Facebook, family members email me, I still get
invited to things, etc. I really don’t see what I’m missing by not being on it
aside from some centralization of communication services that would hardly be
much of an improvement for me.

Almost everyone I know feels the same way. The common refrain I hear from most
people is, “I only use it for photos and to keep up with X distant
relative(s)/friend(s).” This also seems to me, to be the general cultural
attitude towards it.

It seems to me there is a subset of the population that are very active users
and a further subset who are negatively influenced by its advertising reach.
However, are we really to believe that a product that so many people claim
holds so little away over their lives is really all that influential?

Conversely I have almost never heard anyone do anything, but admit the power
Google products hold on their lives (myself included). Even of the odd tech
people I know who have, with great dedication used something like DuckDuckGo,
disavowed Google products in their lives at some point only a handful have
ever really stuck with it.

Google’s reach seems far more ubiquitous and forceful then Facebook’s, IMO.

~~~
skybrian
It's a lot easier to use Google search without creating an account. It might
be interesting to see how many people use it but don't have accounts?

------
mindslight
> _because nation-states need a wake-up call: The world needs net-states in
> order to defeat the non-states._

Wait, what? Was this article written by a government, corporation, or other
informational organism that has finally managed to achieve language? Why would
an _individual_ (ie a _homo sapien_ ) be interested in snuffing out the space
of their own existence?

------
dogruck
Facebook doesn’t rule anything. Nonsense hyperbole.

I do think that Google’s search results provide a potent lense. Primarily, if
a result isn’t on the first page of Google’s search result, then it
essentially doesn’t exist. That said, Google also doesn’t rule the world.

------
tambienben
If you don't like the power these companies have, leave their "services".

[https://diasporafoundation.org](https://diasporafoundation.org)

[https://kolabnow.com](https://kolabnow.com)

------
faragon
If Facebook or Google were that powerful, they would be nationalized.

~~~
dgudkov
They may well be heading this route. Having so much power without an effective
voting mechanism through which users (a.k.a. netizens) can influence decision-
making is a known path of development that leads to nothing good.

------
gozur88
To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions have Facebook and Google?

------
adventured
The article attempts to pretend what's going on is new.

It's not at all. The article is just another emotional, absurd, fear mongering
trial balloon.

Let's use logic and examine the facts.

Facebook and Google are not more powerful globally than Standard Oil, US
Steel, or JP Morgan were at their zenith. Aramco is more powerful than Google
by a dramatic margin. Much less The British East India Company (which had a
lot more direct muscle behind it than other commercial giants). Norway's
sovereign fund probably has more real power than Google or Facebook.

JP Morgan had incredible power at its peak. The man, JP Morgan, was _the_
director of America's financial markets at a time when the US was the world's
largest economy.

Standard Oil was so big vs the US Government, JD Rockefeller bailed out the
government by pledging his assets as a stabilizing factor during one of the
largest panics. Today that's so far away from feasible as to be comical to
even consider. Google could bail out the US Government's operations for about
a week, and would instantly vaporize in a small wave of a financial tsunami
like 2009 (Google couldn't have even saved one tiny little corner of that mess
such as AIG).

Now the power in all regards of the US Government is at least 10x what it was
during the industrial revolution. It has a vast standing military capable of
destroying nations at will. It has vast regulatory power that didn't exist 100
years ago. It has vastly increased taxing power that didn't exist 100 years
ago. It has an extremely powerful central bank that has a financial strangle-
hold over most things financial in the US (and partially globally). Just the
SEC working with a few dozen FBI agents alone could destroy Facebook if
unleashed with just a few new laws (not an exaggeration).

1) Facebook has no physical capabilities. Facebook is easily destroyed by the
government. They can raid Facebook's offices any day of the week with guns and
end the corporation forever. That's not an exaggeration, any day of the week -
Facebook has no physical defense, it will never have that capability. It will
always be subservient to the extreme might of the US Government. Any domestic
challenge to the physical power of the US Government will be met with obvious
consequences, see: all of US history.

2) Facebook has no meaningful power over global or domestic financial markets.
It has $30b in cash and $16b in 2017 profit. A _joke_ (x100+) compared to the
power of the central bank of China; it's a joke (x30) compared to the Norway
sovereign fund.

3) Facebook has no taxing authority (placing ads on your own web site that
people use voluntarily is not a taxing authority; taxing authority is being
able to _force_ people to pay, being able to _take_ their wages against their
will, backed up by threat of force), no serious ability to issue currency, and
it has no independent financial capability not directly tied to a nation's
central bank. (yet, maybe crypto-currencies change this in 20 years). That is,
it's hostage to where it operates, and inherently subservient to large
nations. The EU broadly can end Facebook's ability to operate within most of
Europe any time it decided to do so (with likely consequences on trade, but
non-the-less). Facebook's recourse? Cry in the corner, similar to Google's
recourse when it gets massively fined by the EU.

4) Facebook has no ability to dictate domestic terms to the people or
government in a nation in which it operates (several European & Asian nations
are actively demonstrating this). What I mean by that, is: any given nation
can turn off Facebook at any given time, plenty of nations have demonstrated
that type of ability and willingness over the years (China being the ultimate
example, but others such as Turkey or Brazil have done similar things). The
mere fact that it can't even manage to control this vector, reveals how weak
it actually is compared to nations (why? because it has neither the financial
power of a small nation nor any physical might at all (no physical might means
even weak small nations can ignore you at will with few consequences)).

This article is pathetic.

~~~
uoaei
Your argument presupposes that the sole purveyor of power is money, with a
secondary vehicle of physical domination. It's true that money makes the world
go round but there are many subtler ways to influence markets and public
discourse. These also constitute power and if we are to support free
expression we should recognize its threats now and be proactive about
countering the actions that lead to negative consequences.

