Arnold Kling on Facebook detractors

The great Arnold Kling asks the question:

I am sick of reading about people who want to regulate Facebook. You didn’t come up with the idea. You didn’t build the business. Now that it’s here, who the heck do you think you are telling them how to run it?

Many of these detractors think that they are ‘conservative’. But if you think that you’d like to use the power of the state to harass people you don’t like, you’re not a conservative; you’re just a fascist.*

Kling has suggestions for a competing service.

*with apologies to Doctor Who.

This entry was posted in Cryptoeconomics, Economics and economy. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Arnold Kling on Facebook detractors

  1. FelixKruell

    Even worse: not only didn’t they build the business, they don’t even use the service, and disdain those that do.

  2. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    facebook crushes competition. social network are a monopoly business model, they sell scale to users. even google couldn’t get its social network off the ground. a better network is irrelevant if it can’t get scale.

  3. Cui Bono

    Conservatives have a blanket rule against regulations huh?

  4. Tim Neilson

    I’m anticipating that we’re going to need another run of Iamashiteater Bullshit Bingo (Internet Companies version).
    The modus operandi is as follows:
    1. Iamashiteater usually starts by strutting on to the site and denouncing other people as “confused”, not knowing about politics etc., and proclaiming that conservatives are collectivists, leftists etc.
    2. At any point in proceedings, Iamashiteater, having started with 1., may dissolve into self pity when someone is discourteous to him.
    3. At any point, Iamashiteater may totally falsely claim that no-one has refuted his previous bullshit (or that his previous bullshit has been misrepresented), even if disproof of his claim is only a few comments back on the current thread.
    4. Specifically as regards the tech giants, Iamashiteater will falsely accuse other commenters of wanting the tech giants to be regulated like common carriers.
    5. When it is pointed out that 4 is a total lie, and that commenters are advocating precisely that tech giants NOT be treated like common carriers, especially re common carrier exemptions from defamation etc. Iamashiteater will sneeringly demand “what exemptions?” and deny that such exemptions exist.
    6. Iamashiteater is then referred to section 230 in the USA and the subordinate distributor exemptions in Australia’s uniform defamation law. Iamashiteater then dismisses those as ‘redundant”.
    7. It is then pointed out to Iamashiteater that by dismissing those as “redundant” he is declaring himself to know more about defamation law than:
    (a) the Attorneys-General, AG Departments, Parliamentary Counsel, law reform agencies, legal academics, defamation practitioners and others who took part in the defamation law reforms in Australia; and
    (b) their equivalents in the USA.
    Iamashiteater denies that that’s implicit in his claim, but gives zero justification as to how his denial can possibly be true – just retreating to unsubstantiated generalities, and protestations about how of course he’d support tech giants not getting special exemptions etc if there were any (essentially circling back to 6).
    8. Iamashiteater is asked point blank to state whether section 230 and the subordinate distributor exemptions are:
    (a) redundant – see point 7; or
    (b) not redundant – see point 5.
    Iamashiteater describes the question as a “false alternative”, throws an embarrassingly hysterical toddler tantrum and starts repeating 1 and 2.
    So, instead of wasting our time with Iamashiteater’s cycle of conceit, ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty on this issue, when he posts any of his fatuitous rubbish we can just respond by identifying the particular bullshit in that comment with the appropriate number from the list above.

  5. stackja

    I don’t believe any Facebook postings anymore than any other MSM reporting. Only the gullible do.
    I am skeptical of most reporting.

  6. Sinclair Davidson

    I don’t believe any Facebook postings anymore than any other MSM reporting.

    People posting on Facebook are your friends.

  7. stackja

    Sinc – Friends aren’t infallible.

  8. BoyfromTottenham

    Compare the situation of the current social media megaliths with the US railways, telegraph, and telephone monopolies that developed in a lassez-faire, virtually regulation-free, environment more than a century ago. They all abused their monopoly power and were broken up / regulated by government (and sometimes reverted to monopolies that had to be broken up and re-regulated again). None of these examples were created by government, but were or at least became natural monopolies with vast economic power which they abused. Government has a responsibility to regulate such monopolies, IMO.

  9. Mother Lode

    Just as an aside, I was under the impression that Facebook was in decline, and that Instagram was the rising star.

  10. FelixKruell

    Zippy:

    facebook crushes competition. social network are a monopoly business model, they sell scale to users. even google couldn’t get its social network off the ground. a better network is irrelevant if it can’t get scale.

    Nonsense. Facebook was a late comer to social media, yet now dominates. Already with younger uses, it is being replaced by other social media. Google failed because its product was bad. Instagram, SnapChat, TikTok etc have all done just fine

  11. Bruce of Newcastle

    So what about Facebook regulating Facebook eh?
    A lot of conservatives who get shadowbanned would like to know the answer to that question.

  12. max

    If I have business and live in free country I should have right to choose who come in my shop and who I like to work with or serve.

    No welcome:
    smelly people, ugly people, to tall people, to short people… –basically I should have right to discriminate

    This include what you can say on my premises or online.

  13. max

    And yes there is no private monopoly with out government law.

  14. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    I am sick of reading about people who want to regulate Facebook. You didn’t come up with the idea. You didn’t build the business. Now that it’s here, who the heck do you think you are telling them how to run it?

    Spacechook is run by an evil slimy little collectivist cockhead and used by lazy gullible people whose faith in his benevolence is sadly misplaced. Which, funnily enough, is why I refuse to use it.

  15. Sinc always seems to get confused at what people are suggesting. No one is suggesting that the likes of Facebook, Twitter etc be regulated ie, told what they can or cannot do.

    All we are saying is keep doing what you’re doing, but because of what you are doing, you will now be classified as a publisher, not a carrier.

    Being classified as a publisher in no way changes their business model or the way they do business. They are free to engage with the world as they always have been doing.

    So what’s the problem?

  16. thefrollickingmole

    Sinclair Davidson
    #3258099, posted on December 11, 2019 at 11:10 am
    I don’t believe any Facebook postings anymore than any other MSM reporting.

    People posting on Facebook are your friends.

    Some of my friends, it pains me to say it are batshit insane.

    The full chemtrails/vaccination/greens voting windowlicking insane.
    Where when i talk to them we can have reasonable discussions any chatting online would just result in a shitfight with other frightbats wafting in to stir things up.

    If I have any friends insane in the “right wing” was id never know it as Facebook would censor/ban them.

    It doesnt need regulation beyond maintaining a level playing field.
    As it stands I believe they do a good job on removing some really vile stuff (and i assume passing the info onto the cops) .

  17. Judge Dredd

    This is why conservatives keep losing and actually don’t end up conserving anything.
    Those progressives are more than happy to use government power against “conservative” people and institutions, but when the opportunity opens for conservatives they shy away from using the same weapons.
    That is a proven losing strategy.

  18. John A

    I just want Facebook to play by one set of rules, instead of two.
    EITHER
    a) the rules of common carriers, where the only comments controlled are the illegal ones (and maybe not even them, for logistical reasons of how the hell do they do it?)
    OR
    b) the rules of editorial publishing, where they can massage err, manage, the content to present a particular point of view

    BUT NOT BOTH as it inconsistently suits them.

  19. FelixKruell

    John:

    I think Facebook traditionally aimed for Option A, and would love to still live in that world. They don’t want you to vote for any particular candidate. They (largely) have no skin in any political game. They just want you to spend time on their site.

    But public pressure, political pressure, and in some cases legislation, mean that it can no longer stick to Option A. If you don’t like that, I wouldn’t be directing the blame at Facebook…

  20. But public pressure, political pressure, and in some cases legislation, mean that it can no longer stick to Option A.

    All Zuck has to do is go to Walmart, buy a set of balls and tell the SJWs to F… off. If his employees complain, tell them they have two options, agree to his company policies or resign. I’m sure that he can replace the entire Facebook organisation with agreeable staff from India.

  21. Kneel

    John A
    #3258335, posted on December 11, 2019 at 2:30 pm

    Exactly.
    I would suggest that going the “common carrier” route is both safer and cheaper for them. Alas, it is also politically difficult – because of “progressives”, who seem to say that Facebook is “speshul” and that the progressive people inhabiting Facebook are too dumb to think for themselves, too woke to allow any insult to even exist, and too fragile to face messy reality.

  22. Kneel

    “They (largely) have no skin in any political game.”

    Ho ho ho.
    Go read what the dickhead of Facebook told the US Congress he did with his “no skin in the game” “platform” during the 2016 election. Not even close to politically neutral, it was a massive, if subtle, push to make HRC look less bad and DJT look less good. A deliberate editorial choice, hidden from his customers, that he appears to be proud of and would likely do again.
    Imagine the howls of protest if he had done it the other way…

  23. Chris M

    All we are saying is keep doing what you’re doing, but because of what you are doing, you will now be classified as a publisher, not a carrier.

    Yes! As they freely chose this route the same laws that apply to other publishers must apply to them.

  24. this “great” Arnold Kling, whoever he is, can go & perform upon himself a certain act requiring considerable powers of contortion.
    Without any petroleum jelly or respiratory equipment.

  25. FaceBook has a limited lifespan, it might have already started circling the drain if it did not acquire Instagram.

    Anyone who wants Libra as currency is asking for a social credit score.

    FaceBook lied for years about their financials. I have not seen dodgier accounting.

    I simply don’t believe they have free cash flow of 16 bn USD per quarter. Companies have been avoiding buying ads with them for ages and there is only so much data to mine from semi-fake, semi-anonymous accounts.

    That means they produce roughly as much value as Royal Dutch Shell plc.

Comments are closed.