itâd be nice if they could split into one place for rational, fact based, respectful discourse and another side dedicated to those who enjoy fact free invective in support of vlad, white supremacy, the abomination and the american fascist cult.
Good luck threading that needle.
First step toward government regulation of the Internet?
Why are Apple and Microsoft always left out of these discussions?
The Big Five: Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft all have undue influence upon the Nation (and the World) and need to be much more aggressively regulated as a result.
I agree that Google, Amazon, and Facebook all need to have their Hegemonies be broken up into separate entities, and Apple and Microsoft need to be regulated much more heavily and forced to allow more access to their platforms.
All of them need to have their Tax status looked at as none of them pay much of anything in Taxes, but that is another issue altogether.
How about we just kill it dead?
The âInternetâ is already regulated. Just not the companies that control the on and off ramps to it (AT&T, Verizon, etc.)
Then where will you post cute squirrel videos?
What about ISPâs? Think we need a cop to make them provide equal access to all content? What if said cop has his own ideas about what content should be on the system?
Regulated in what sense?
Why, here of course. 
The âNet Neutralityâ initiative tells the FCC to re-declare the large ISPs as âCommon Carriersâ (as they were in 2015) to make sure they cannot mess with traffic and charge you, the consumer, whatever the hell they want to based upon their own SEPARATE business relationships with content providers (Netflix, Amazon, etc.)
Thatâs the dream.
Hereâs the reality:
With the onset of the Presidency of Donald Trump in 2017, and the appointment of Ajit Pai, an opponent of net neutrality, to the chairman of the FCC, the FCC has reversed many previous net neutrality rulings, and reclassified Internet services as Title I information services.[61] The FCCâs decisions have been a matter of several ongoing legal challenges by both states supporting net neutrality, and ISPs challenging it. The United States Congress has attempted to pass legislation supporting net neutrality but have failed to gain sufficient support, while individual states are trying to pass legislation overriding the FCCâs decision to make net neutrality a requirement within their state. California has successfully passed its own net neutrality act, which the United States government is challenging on a legal basis.
So, regulated like the Wild West was regulated?
And again, do you want Sheriff Content Regulator to vet your internet content? âCuz thatâs what bustinâ them iTrusts will lead toâŚ
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about and clearly did not read what I wrote.
Discussion over.
You could start by breaking the apps out from the main platform, and making the main platform open-access for ad brokers. And then regulating â no, really, by people who have incentive to find things â the information flows among those pieces. Maybe also the data centersâŚ
That wouldnât address the content issues directly, but it would make openings where people could learn enough to start addressing the content issues.
I read what you wrote. An initiative is not legislation nor is it any kind of regulation. Strike 1
I work in IT, I have advanced degrees and certifications in networking and various other aspects of the internet and how one can use, abuse, and regulate it. Strike 2
Strike 3 and Out.
Game over.
Thatâs 4chan and Reddit.
And then Zuck cried under his desk
I agree wholeheartedly with the quotes on this article, and I think commenters are right to note that Facebook is just one member of a whole class of actors upon whose wisdom the health of society depends. But I also think this is all somewhat beside the point from a regulatory perspective.
The problem is that telecommunications technology is â and necessarily always will â make it easier for dangerous messages to spread quicker and farther, and that power is now available to practically every individual. Itâs not that 5 specific monolithic companies are bad actors.
This is a new problem for society, or at least a confluence of extant problems that are separately magnified and exacerbate each other. Weâll have no rest until we find a solution to constant bombardment by bad messages â whether or not the source is intentionally malicious.
ETA: society invented RICO laws to make it possible to combat organized crime. I think weâre going to need an analogously new set of tools to deal with stochastic anti-information. Maybe itâs laws. Maybe itâs technology. Maybe itâs new organizations. I donât think we have the tools we need. I donât even know if we understand the new problems well enough to design a good solution. Bu
I avoid all three like the plague. Iâm self vaccinated.
That would defeat the purpose. Theyâll never convert anyone by keeping their virulent misinformation within a cordoned area.
You might as well suggest they remove commercials from TV shows, and put them all on a separate station dedicated to ads.
The whole point is to lie in wait near the watering hole and ambush the unwary.