

It's Time for a Social Network Neutrality - jrlevine
http://www.jakelevine.me/blog/2011/07/its-time-for-a-social-network-neutrality/

======
joebadmo
So, I'm admittedly a pretty big Google fanboy, so take the following with a
grain of salt.

 _Playing the white knight (or social underdog), Google has tended to act in
the interest of data portability, but Google’s policy of “we’ll let you import
our contacts if you let us import your contacts,” reeks of data protectionism,
and should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, given Google’s own
checkered past._

It seems to me that, because it makes its money from search, Google has a
special symbiotic relationship with the web. (more on that here:
[http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7590977101/googles-
existentia...](http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/7590977101/googles-existential-
crisis)) Google benefits from an open web. And I think they demonstrated those
incentives (or at least attempted to) with Buzz and Wave.

Google's policy of reciprocation struck me more as a way to open up the
existing silos than as a data protectionism measure.

While I'm slightly concerned with how closed Google+ appears to be, I have
hope that that's a temporary situation that will change as soon as they think
they can execute well on the promise of open, interoperable social networks.

------
relic17
Quoting the quote: "At the heart of common carriage is the idea that certain
businesses are either so intimately connected, even essential, to the public
good, or so inherently powerful—imagine the water or electric utilities—that
they must be compelled to conduct their affairs in a nondiscriminatory way."
Since the author apparently supports the above view, the proper questions are:
what is the public good, and does it justify the use of force ("must be
compelled") against any individual or business who produces something deemed
to be of public importance. A person who "compels" non-criminals to do
anything they do not choose to do cannot claim to be an honest protector of
the public good.

~~~
jrlevine
The public good is the opportunity to speak and compete. Those who control the
channels of distribution on the web control both.

~~~
relic17
Only the government can stop you from speaking (and competing), as the
government is the only entity that has the right to initiate force. A company
cannot censor you; it can deny you access to its property, which is the proper
right of its owners. A company cannot force you not to speak if you so choose
using your own means or the means of any other company that would like to work
with you. It has no obligation to support you and give you the tools you need,
just because you need them. Do not confuse economic power with political
power.

~~~
jrlevine
I wholeheartedly disagree. Force doesn't always look like the point of a gun.
More often than not it looks like court time and lawyers' fees.

See Hays Code censoring film from 1930-1968. See RCA tying up the FM radio
patent for years in court and NBC blocking the emergence of Television. See
consolidation in the radio industry limiting the number of participants in
broadcasting.

Wu puts it nicely:

“If making yourself heard cannot be practically accomplished in an actual
public square but rather depends upon some medium, and upon that medium is
built an industry restricting access to it, there is no free market for
speech.

We sometimes treat the information industries as if they were like any other
enterprise, but they are not, for their structure determines who gets heard.

But barriers in an information industry, trafficking as it does in expressive
content, can represent more than a restraint on commercial aspirations; they
can, depending on how crucially the information medium figures in a society’s
communications, also restrain free speech."

Wu, Tim (2010). The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.
Knopf. Kindle Edition.

~~~
relic17
Force is at the point of a gun, and only in that case you (or, rather, the
government as your agent) should point a gun at it (or in a case of
demonstrable fraud). A business which does not defraud you or physically force
you to do anything can only have economic power. If you propose to point a gun
at economic power (possibly because you think that the business in question is
a monopoly), then the issue is much deeper. You would have to think about what
justifies "compulsion", about the source of monopolies, and, fundamentally,
about the rights of the businessmen who own and operate the businesses you
have mind (as well as your own rights, which are the same). This is a serious
thinking process, but one has to go through it to understand why Wu is wrong.

~~~
jrlevine
Your issue is with the government's right to enforce antitrust law, for which
there is a long history showing why they should.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law>

~~~
relic17
I do disagree with the anti-trust laws. I have taken a long hard look at anti-
trust, both academically and professionally, and I think these laws are among
the worst.

The whole issue is not economic, it is philosophical, about ethics - i.e. what
is moral and what rights people have.

Mr. Wu, with whom you agree, goes well beyond anti-trust. For him, as long as
a business is considered essential to the public good, that alone is enough to
justify "compulsion" (see your first quote). Do you agree with that? Or would
you try to prove (as hard as that can be) that Facebook and Google are
monopolies first?

You say "we should vote with our attention", and I fully agree. This is a
proper way to make a change. Another would be to write articles like the one
you've just written, using your own means. Compulsion should be reserved for
criminals.

------
avnmom
Really enjoyed your article. Thanks, Jake.

Janell

------
bhstahl
Very collective message, great read

------
MPLaValle
Really solid breakdown, nice work.

