Reading the Oversight Board Charter, it's striking that "freedom of speech" is not only redefined, but policed: "internet services have a responsibility to set standards for what is and is not acceptable to share on their platforms." (https://www.oversightboard.com/governance/)
If Facebook were treated as a Sovereign, instituting their own ruling on their cyberspace territory, constitutional rights are a fundamental element of the Charter. Current standards may lead towards an Orwellian future though, leveraging a digital panopticon of advanced surveillance.
Further to this, Facebook's AI content recommendation undeniably influence their users' preferences based on their social graph. Users not only can, but have been influenced by this system in the past. An omnipresent and all-powerful Sovereign of Cyberspace is rising. To your point, control of capital flows by minting its own currency is not only the next logical phase, but almost inevitable.
Now I wonder: how will Sovereigns in the Cyberspace, such as Facebook, enforce their rules with a diminishing return on violence? Their control may be harder to retain over time as digital citizens are quite mobile, to say the least.
Thank you for your comment! Yes the Oversight Board Charter has its own conception of freedom of speech that is different from the U.S. Constitution for instance. The goal of Facebook is apparently to create a unified global community. In that regards, Facebook needs its people to share a common way of thinking. In my opinion, one of the viable strategy is to police content towards a unified discourse. The social network will define what it is allowed to say or not and then mass enforce it with AI. It's a matter of survival for them because I expect the most unified community to win in the long run. Although it is a novelty because it's happening in cyberspace with a private entity, it's a very classic process. The Church and later the Government spent considerable resources to create common beliefs through propaganda and freedom of speech restriction. I can't wait to see how Facebook will create a unified world view for 2.7bn people.
As you may have notice, one of the key difference between the Church / Government and a digital organization in cyberspace is the ability for the user to exit without occurring too much cost. If you are not satisfied with Facebook's policy you can move to the Republic of Twitter or 4chan in few clicks. It's way easier than, for instance, Victor Hugo who had to live in exile because he didn't like the Second French Empire. So to answer your question, in my opinion, Facebook will find the optimal equilibrium to please its users while preserving a unified worldview. In the world of diminishing return on violence, Facebook won't have to use guns and will rely on content policy and AI.
Reading the Oversight Board Charter, it's striking that "freedom of speech" is not only redefined, but policed: "internet services have a responsibility to set standards for what is and is not acceptable to share on their platforms." (https://www.oversightboard.com/governance/)
If Facebook were treated as a Sovereign, instituting their own ruling on their cyberspace territory, constitutional rights are a fundamental element of the Charter. Current standards may lead towards an Orwellian future though, leveraging a digital panopticon of advanced surveillance.
Further to this, Facebook's AI content recommendation undeniably influence their users' preferences based on their social graph. Users not only can, but have been influenced by this system in the past. An omnipresent and all-powerful Sovereign of Cyberspace is rising. To your point, control of capital flows by minting its own currency is not only the next logical phase, but almost inevitable.
Now I wonder: how will Sovereigns in the Cyberspace, such as Facebook, enforce their rules with a diminishing return on violence? Their control may be harder to retain over time as digital citizens are quite mobile, to say the least.
Thank you for your comment! Yes the Oversight Board Charter has its own conception of freedom of speech that is different from the U.S. Constitution for instance. The goal of Facebook is apparently to create a unified global community. In that regards, Facebook needs its people to share a common way of thinking. In my opinion, one of the viable strategy is to police content towards a unified discourse. The social network will define what it is allowed to say or not and then mass enforce it with AI. It's a matter of survival for them because I expect the most unified community to win in the long run. Although it is a novelty because it's happening in cyberspace with a private entity, it's a very classic process. The Church and later the Government spent considerable resources to create common beliefs through propaganda and freedom of speech restriction. I can't wait to see how Facebook will create a unified world view for 2.7bn people.
As you may have notice, one of the key difference between the Church / Government and a digital organization in cyberspace is the ability for the user to exit without occurring too much cost. If you are not satisfied with Facebook's policy you can move to the Republic of Twitter or 4chan in few clicks. It's way easier than, for instance, Victor Hugo who had to live in exile because he didn't like the Second French Empire. So to answer your question, in my opinion, Facebook will find the optimal equilibrium to please its users while preserving a unified worldview. In the world of diminishing return on violence, Facebook won't have to use guns and will rely on content policy and AI.