Reading response C
Dan: It really depends on scale. You could have no taxation or a full constitution when you only have 100 users, but once you have a million users you really should have one.
Ayham: It’s regulation. The big discussion now about these large social networks is how they’re finally being critiqued due in part to the election and the effect it had on the user’s trust in their news feeds.
Dan: It’s regulation, but it’s also civil rights and a system for legislature and change. It’s sustainability and due process. A lot of these things are not just top down regulation—they are social contracts.
But also, like Katelyn suggested, there are other ways. Where I live, we have block association that’s the most casual thing ever. It’s an email list, and questions come up like, “Who pays for the bouncy castle?” and “Should we clean up the sidewalk a little bit more?” and “A film crew paid off someone $1000 to shoot a TV show on the block, so should we put that money into the bouncy castle fund? Or do we give it to the food pantry on the corner?” And someone was like, "We'll take a vote." And someone else was like, “Voting is not the appropriate way to do this.”
Zhiyan: I feel like the social network just like an ant nest, it is a clear division of responsibilities. We can learn a lot of information from the Internet, and we pay for them. The relationship between the websites and us is a customer and provider relationship. In my opinion, this relationship is going to evolve. In China, the shared services are really popular these days. All of us could directly or indirectly produce economic efficiency, upgrade and improve quality of peoples living. So I imagine that one day the websites can change the customer and provider relationship to more flexible possibilities…Sounds like capitalism and socialism could achieve a reasonable balance.