My big problem with Facebook is that it doesn’t matter how “community conscientious” its TOS seems to be, the legal bottom line is, Facebook invariably has control over what you are permitted to say or do. Any semblance of democratic, equitable process for resolving dispute or dispensing reprieve is fanciful dreaming – and I’m not talking about disagreement over unambiguous deleterious extremist Nazi propaganda hate monger kind of stuff – but over issues that involve the use of creative content (one of the critical battles being waged in the digital age), and its inconsistent policy of discrimination against anyone in adult entertainment, for their obvious “child-raping, women hating” career path; to name only two. But don’t misunderstand me. I know it has to be that way.
To presume that the term “social media” or “digital community” somehow also implies the same kind of sovereign providence of a “pavement and dirt” community is an egregious mistake. Facebook is a private service that acts, in some ways, as a community, with all the attractions and advantages that only the virtual world can provide, but it is, nevertheless, still a private concern. And as such, it must weigh the legal limitations placed upon it. Just how fair and acceptable those decisions are, in the mind of a consumer (a Facebook user in this case) should, theoretically, be demonstrated by whether they continue to be a customer. I’m willing to bet, however, that moving or quitting this service may prove to be more like its counterpart in real life, harder to do than you may imagine – more so the longer you’ve spent in that place. Nonetheless, that’s the abstract model.
I’m not confused by this distinction, though I have great disagreement with it. To be blunt, I frequently debate the prospects of leaving Facebook – my instinctual need to exercise full dominion over critical aspects of my life as an emancipated adult individual in the modern world balanced against how much I would miss some of the people I’ve gotten to catch up with and the people I’ve gotten to know or know better if I did. I know that there are only two possibilities that could make that possible. One, own a controlling interest in Facebook (possible but extremely remote). Or two, to find another situation that resembles that same situation from a legal perspective. And this is the point when two other notions, or two questions rather, came together in my head.
The first question: Is it possible to create a Facebook that is owned and operated by the users and not by Mark Zuckerberg, et alia?
In real estate, this is called a condominium or a cooperative. I realize that there is important distinction between condos and coops, which differentiates ownership of the dwellers in the property directly, or through a corporation (by means of owning shares) which in turn holds title to the property. I am not sure if that distinction is important for this analogy or not. But the general idea is to transfer ownership to those who use it. Is it possible? As an abstract legal model and business model – yes, it is possible. And before I move to the second question, it should be noted that common ownership would not remove any of the issues I mentioned above, but the responsibility of how to resolve them would rest with the community which is where they should be in the first place, because these are essentially community issues at hand.
The second question I had was, is there a technology that would recreate, or perhaps improve upon the other critical aspect that Facebook has to offer – its inviting and oh-so-useful (depending on your opinion) software? In geek-speak, it would be more accurate to refer to it as a platform. But is there something that can replace that platform, or drastically help establish an attractive platform, but one that isn’t owned by separate private interests – one that cannot be taken away, or controlled through a demand for toll or lease? The answer is possibly.
I want to say yes, but I have yet to understand all of its functions fully. What am I talking about? Google Wave, of course. I could spend countless hours trying to explain the uniqueness of this technology and never get to the revolutionary potential that this technology has when deployed as a “platform operator” spread out across the Net on millions of independent hosts, both private and public. Realistically, you need to watch Google’s annoyingly long, nail-on-chalk board excruciatingly trite and sophomoric presentation for yourself. Honestly, it’s worth it. In this rare instance, I’ve constrained my impulse to recommend gunplay in deference to its innate value and importance.
Watch » the Wave Presentation
If you do see the video, please drop me a note to let me know what you think. Even the “You’re out of your frickin’ mind, Sterling” ones are welcome provided they come with some rational argument. Otherwise, I’ll have to get all argumentum ad hominem and shit with your sorry ass, umkay.
Things Do Not Look Good.
To begin with, let’s make one thing absolutely clear, pornography in the United States is illegal—or, to be more precise, obscene material in the United States is illegal since the term ‘pornography’ in US courts has no legal definition. Simply because there have been only a few federal obscenity cases in the past decade does not change the fact that the commercial production or the distribution of obscene materials is still illegal. Contrary to widespread misconceptions, at the present time, if you make, produce, share or sell sexually oriented material, by almost any means presently possible, including a computer, you are committing a criminal act in the eyes of federal law and you can be prosecuted for it. But you need not take my word for it. Here is the exact statue: US Code, 
Sterling Kekoa
