> I think most would agree that if there were a globally connected (meaning countries are not silos)
The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc.
> I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition
I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population.
> While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice
There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook.
> The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms
> The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc.
You are just shifting the problem here to the edges between the different systems.
> I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population. > There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook.
I don't claim the US has the optimal system here but I think it's dangerous to claim to know what people want under the guise that they don't know what they are doing. People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change.
> I can't take you seriously. You must be joking.
I failed to add enough context but I was mainly talking about advertisement based companies that chose this monetisation path. Having worked at start-ups I'm highly confident that many of them don't have security and/or privacy (anonymity) as a first (or second or third) priority. FB has made grave errors here but I'm not sure I trust "random FB replacer" any more given FB is under a magnifying glass not with people watching their every move.
> People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change.
This is why populists or platforms like FB make sure that people either don’t know that things can change or that they already live in the best version of the reality and, well, everyone else has it worse.
"People will have vote with their actions if they want things to change."
That isn't how monopolies work - while some people can individually make huge sacrificies and not use any Facebook product, in reality that isn't practical and few people will because they are a monopoly.
This isn't like buying a car where there are multiple providers who all use the same roads and petrol. Or the mobile phone system, where there are standards (GSM) and regulations so you have a choice of physical and virtual networks.
In my mind, breaking up Facebook would be a massively pro-market (increase choice and competition) and massively pro-capitalist (increase investment of capital, profit and innovation) move.
Yes, It's a huge sacrifice not to use the primary (and in most cases only) messaging and event organising platform in your local network. And usually that platform is Messenger or WhatsApp. Sometimes it's IG.
And yes, feel free to argue that you can still be reached on SMS, Signal or Telegram or literally any other messaging platform. But good luck convincing even your closest friends and family to join.
Good for you. Anecdotally I'd lose touch with casual acquaintances/friends and spontaneous meetups if someone had to send me an SMS to get in touch with me, and people under 30 will corroborate that.
I wasn't saying anything about government regulations, don't put words in my mouth.
The best solution to this would be regional alternatives operating on a shared standard. This would avoid the problem of values not reflecting your culture's values, not having to moderate billions of people, etc.
> I'm personally not a huge fan of governments messing with competition
I'm not a fan of the US's bizarre mix of laissez-faire "fuck you" capitalism and systems of regulatory capture. If all you value is rewarding any one company with an entire market because "they're successful", then fine. But the point of markets isn't to enrich a single company to the detriment of everybody else. It's to benefit the population.
> While there are other monetisation paths many people are actually ok with the trade of their data for features and should have this choice
There is no choice being made here. People aren't aware of how much of their date is being collected by companies like Facebook.
> The larger tech companies probably have some of the most well organised and privacy aware advertising platforms
I can't take you seriously. You must be joking.