>>but you’re either for or against private property
In cyberspace, you simply cannot use the simplistic rules of private property that apply to tangible items and dirt. FB, Twitter, etc declare that all material posted on their site becomes their property and they can use it for whatever they want.
Using traditional private property rules, that’s like Wal-mart declaring that any vehicle parked in their lot belongs to Wal-mart and can be moved, looted, modified in anyway that Wal-mart decides because “you read the 80 page EULA that we posted inside the store, right?”
Cyberspace needs its own set of property rules that uniquely address all the special situations that exist in cyberspace and do not exist in the real world. Trying to adapt brick and mortar rules is impossible unless they are applied unfairly. This is what is happening here.
“Cyberspace needs its own set of property rules that uniquely address all the special situations that exist in cyberspace and do not exist in the real world. Trying to adapt brick and mortar rules is impossible unless they are applied unfairly. This is what is happening here.”
Yup. Cyberspace is informational territory. You could even carve out a virtual nation. New rules coming like it or not.
"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that there may be incredible inefficiencies in applying millenia-old rules of property to the decades-old internet. Yes, we currently lack a sizable competitor to FB or Twitter and until such a time, they are the market leaders. I personally don't like all the things people give up when they sign the Apple "Privacy" policy.
However, nobody is FORCING ANYONE to use FB or Twitter or Apple. And I suspect over time, just like in your Wal-Mart example where customers would likely flee to competitors, a viable competitor to FB and Twitter WILL emerge. Indeed, remember Netscape and Altavista and the Betamax?
The key to this process is to avoid government meddling. The private sector is best at sorting out these things..it may not be fast enough for many of us, but it's preferable to Leviathan. Throwing away the irreducible primary of "it's mine and I can do what I want with it" because of the Internet is something I'm not willing to embrace, nor do I suspect are you. Where we seemingly disagree is the threat potential while we wait, and the extent to which government can move things along. Perhaps I am naive in my thinking, but it's worked for me (and scores of others) over thousands of years. Thanks for listening.