"The problem with analogies is we have to be very careful that they make
sense. I think your analogy does not. A bridge, in this sense of the word, is
a structure (in this case you claim facebook) carrying a road (in this case I
assume digital information) across something (for traditional bridges, a
river, a road, etc. -- in your analogy, I am not sure what it is). So, a
bridge connects 2 points basically. A tolled bridge is one which charges you
a fee to cross. Bridges are not meant for people to live on them, they are
meant to be crossed."
Bridges are a way to get things from one side to another. Technically
speaking, this would be data/information. They are carrying things across the
river, which is what prevents the people from communicating. In real life,
this would be travel distance. It stops people from easily communicating from
one side to another, so they use the bridges (the internet - Facebook, email,
xmpp, etc.) for communications.
"If you follow Moglen's argument, facebook is not free media."
Facebook may not be free media, but it isn't preventing you from using any
other form of free media. There are always going to be different ways to
communicate, some less censored than others.
"In any case, I really hope you are right not to be concerned and I am wrong
about the negative potential of services like facebook, for all of our sakes.
It took the Third Reich one year to locate all the Jews in Germany. With
facebook it would take 1 day. I believe that we should shape our governments,
or "services," and our life in such a way to minimize the potential for
abuse, given the worse possible outcome (lets say, for illustration only,
someone like Pol Pot becomes dictator in the U.S.). The moment we start
creating "solutions" and policies that assume benevolent leaders in order for
abuse not to take place, we are setting ourselves up for disaster. Like I
said, I sincerely hope that I am wrong and you are right."
This isn't all about who is wrong or who is right, as I mentioned earlier,
but rather it is about defending freedom. Sure, giving leaders
information/power can be disastrous under certain circumstances, but
naturally all humans seek power. We fear those who have greater power than
us, so we always seek more. In an anarchic/realist society, we go to war with
those who we fear will gain more power than us eventually, to prevent that
from happening. Just like the Peloponessian war, which "realists" claim was
inevitable, the gaining of power always leads to tension. The thing here that
realists never realize, and has been proven beneficial and viable by hundreds
of thousands of scholars, is that diplomacy exists. Disaster isn't
inevitable.
