We're essentially opining about the difference between governance systems.
Facebook (like most corporations) operates an autocracy. However, unlike most corporations Facebook generates 100B+ in revenue per year (more than most countries), is worth $1T+ (again, more than most countries), and home to 3B+ users daily lives (trifecta, more than all countries). It's time to acknowledge the company that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is a duck.
If Facebook was so inclined to change their governance model, a plethora of prior art exists, in public sector government implementations, for them to build from. An endeavor of this magnitude is neither easy nor simple nor palatable to more engineering-inclined minds, but it's perhaps generational opportunity for a person/company to truly lead and innovate on such a ubiquitous digital platform.
> It's time to acknowledge the company that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is a duck.
Are you trying to imply that Facebook is a country? Because this doesn’t make any sense. Countries have an entirely different set of obligations, duties, and jobs to be done than a website dedicated to light communication and entertainment.
I'm directly stating that maybe it's time for Facebook to consider a different governance model than autocracy because their resources and integration within humanity-at-large has scaled beyond that which a single person can reasonably govern. The examples of such failures to govern are so numerous I don't have time to cite them all.
And no, I'm not advocating for Facebook to be nationalized or broken up. I'm specifically pointing out the thought that Facebook could innovate here; they have an opportunity to establish the first truly global self-governing internet-based company in history.
> a website dedicated to light communication and entertainment
This statement is deliberately obtuse. Facebook is a communal space used by 3B people every day to mediate conversations, transactions, news consumption, business, events, etc. I'd hardly say people building their livelihood off of Facebook is "light communication" or "entertainment". Again, look no farther than HN to find examples of Facebook's governance policies harming their users with no explanation or due process: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29614629.
One of the best analogies for social media is the idea of each post being a person yelling in a public area.
Moderation then becomes: what do the local cops tell people to stop saying. Government moderation policy thus approaches social media moderation policy.
$100B in revenues for a country of 3 billion would be absolutely tiny (even for a developed country of 30 million people) and in no way enough to support governance systems even vaguely resembling modern governments.
Facebook (like most corporations) operates an autocracy. However, unlike most corporations Facebook generates 100B+ in revenue per year (more than most countries), is worth $1T+ (again, more than most countries), and home to 3B+ users daily lives (trifecta, more than all countries). It's time to acknowledge the company that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is a duck.
If Facebook was so inclined to change their governance model, a plethora of prior art exists, in public sector government implementations, for them to build from. An endeavor of this magnitude is neither easy nor simple nor palatable to more engineering-inclined minds, but it's perhaps generational opportunity for a person/company to truly lead and innovate on such a ubiquitous digital platform.