the real question is how well these new projects work. Yes, advertising can sell a product. 'News' can change opinions. But they can only do so to a certain degree or for a limited time. Eskimos do not need refrigerators. Counterinsurgency campaigns usually fail. The Internet companies claim that advertising on their channels works extraordinary well because they can categorize the 'eyeballs' they attract by the data their users 'voluntarily' supply. Cambridge Analytica claims it can efficiently manipulate whole nations on a similar base. These companies sell snake-oil. Their claims are made out of self-interest. I for one doubt them.

They think they've outsmarted libertarians when they've only engaged in bizarre definition. Effectively what they are saying here is that opportunity to use unowned property is an ownership stake, which is obviously false. I could use my savings to put a satellite into orbit, but I don't. Does that mean I own the prospective orbit of said satellite? Of course not. Similarly, opportunity to use is not ownership, only first actual use (improvement) or voluntary transfer confers ownership.

Jacobin wants this to be true desperately, as if it is, commie theft is legitimate; as everyone who ever had a possibility of touching a piece of capital owns it. As an aside, it's entirely possible to have a contractual commie-style property ownership regime (where any use implies voluntary transfer, enforced as a deed restriction). They'd rather have an incoherent system without property though, as it justifies their darkest desires.

We’ve looked to the platforms themselves for answers. Companies are aware of the problems and are making efforts to fix them – with each change they make affecting millions of people. The responsibility – and sometimes burden – of making these decisions falls on companies that have been built to maximise profit more than to maximise social good. A legal or regulatory framework that accounts for social objectives may help ease those tensions.