Let's put it this way: you are a wealthy entrepreneur, you have a large and spacious house, with a huge garden that you decide to open to accommodate people who want to make friends and socialize. People start to arrive, they exchange opinions, photos, videos, they fall in love and break up, they even argue, then they make up. In short, they socialize.
You invest to make people feel better, you buy furniture and garden games, build a nice swimming pool, picnic areas, organize live concerts, in short, everything is great!
In the meantime, you begin to get to know the people who frequent your home better and better. Some come only for the pool and need beach umbrellas, beach towels, bathing suits, others love to go to the garden, talk about art and read books, some run, you understand that they would gladly buy books or running shoes. So you contact companies in the sector and offer them to rent areas of the house or garden, where they can exhibit and sell the goods to the visitors of the house (which is always yours). In exchange for a fee, of course. On the other hand you are always an entrepreneur!
Time passes, a community is created and consolidated. Everything goes smoothly, until someone begins to think that that beautiful house, with that wonderful garden is, in reality, his.
And he begins to behave accordingly: he raises his voice, does not respect timetables and rules, if in a speech he is not given the right to "throw in caciara" (Roman expression that stands for: changing the subject, distorting a speech). If he is losing a game of soccer he stops everything, takes the ball and walks away.
At first you let him do it, until, during a match, he exceeds the limit, he violently quarrels with the opponent, insults him, accuses him of cheating, and finally incites his teammates to violence who, following him, force the opponents to lock yourself in the locker room so as not to be beaten. It is definitely too much. You drive him out of the house which, let's remember again, IS YOURS!
What's wrong"? What's "anti-democratic"? Isn't all this allowed to protect your rights and that much desired private property, around which the most powerful nation in the world was built and then the global economy consolidated? It seems not, if the private property is a social network and if the guest of the community is the President of the United States.
Isn't it strange to you to hear certain statements from those who have made the "right of property" a foundation of the state and the bulwark of a party?
But the matter is more complex than it appears, and so let's ask ourselves: is what happened normal? No, this is not normal. It's correct? Yes it's correct. Let's see why.
Is the social network a means of communication?
Il first aspect that we should investigate is the substantial difference that exists between social networks and media. Are social networks means of communication? No! On the other hand it would be enough to reflect on the name that was given to him. Otherwise we would probably have called them "communication networks". As his friend Sergio Bellucci says: “Social networks are born with a different purpose, socialize rather than communicate. Especially since a private profile on Facebook, for example, has an “imposed” limit on 5000 friends! The fact that many use social networks convinced that they can speak (or communicate) to the world is a stretch, through the use of an improper tool ".
Second aspectI social networks they are born as a socialization tool but soon become a "production tool", or rather (again paraphrasing the friend Sergio) "value extraction" tool. And the value is extracted from the users of the network, who among other things are the first workers who bring the means of production (the smartphone) to the capitalist / entrepreneur and who do not ask for a salary in exchange for their work. A godsend! Never before has such a thing been seen in the production of value. Moreover, not being located in a single "physical" place in the world, but residing on a "cloud" (the famous cloud), these production tools are placed above the states, easily escaping regulations and taxation. BINGO!
Third aspect: the clouds (clouds) in which social media "reside" DON'T are owned of the Eternal, as in the real world, but the prerogative of individuals (the same ones who own the social networks and very few others, to be honest), who host them and who, if they get angry, turn them off and poof ... disappear! The Parler's case does it tell you something?
Having said that, let's go back to the two questions “Is what happened normal? It's correct?".
No that's not normal! It is not normal for a President of the United States (it is only the most striking case) to entrust his institutional communication to an "improper" instrument, which he does not own, which crosses national borders, which he is unable to regulate and tax, but above all that it gains from the fact that as many people as possible use it. Normal such a thing? Tell me if it can be ...
Is it correct that a private individual, in the country that has made property and business freedom his flag, decides to stop "doing business" with one person to move on to another more "profitable" one? Do you see something strange there? Not me.
Is all this right? Here's the real question! But to answer this we need a separate article ...