I'm not sure what triggered this response, but I'm guessing it was the "social production" in the book title. In case that caused you to dismiss the book, do have a look. It's not meant to indicate anything doing with social media.
I guess the intention of the term was more inline with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_production_of_habitat "social production involves people at the community level relying on them collectively to identify, exploit and increase local capital as assets in the development process"
In practice the book is more about what Benkler calls "Commons-based peer production" though.
Which wikipedia takes as a synonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_production
"Commons-based peer production is a term coined by Harvard Law School professor Yochai Benkler.[1] It describes a new model of socioeconomic production in which large numbers of people work cooperatively (usually over the Internet). Commons-based projects generally have less rigid hierarchical structures than those under more traditional business models. Often—but not always—commons-based projects are designed without a need for financial compensation for contributors.
The term is often used interchangeably with the term social production."
The book does shows its age in some respects though. At the time it was written p2p, open source, wikipedia and all the other institutions the book focuses on was rather new in the public mind, and perhaps treated a bit too much like magic. A sober follow up would certainly be a valuable addition to the discourse.
I think the biggest take aways from that book in particular is that
- There are other ways to organize human activity than market economies, even when rather large capital assets are involved in the production.
- People are capable of, and actually do, produce many things of enormous value, without any expectation of economic compensation.
- Current legal, cultural, and economic, institutions are somewhat at odds with this mode of production. Thus acting more to suppress (some forms of) valuable economic activity than enabling it.
Framed like this it certainly looks like an argument in a rather old political conflict. But I think that is the wrong way to look at it. It looks more like a synthesis to me, a much more inspiring proposition.
Edit: And Facebook is an interesting thing to study, it embodies both the good and bad parts Benkler talk about. There certainly is a certain amount of social production going on amongst Facebook users. At the same time most of the capital value produced is reaped by Facebook and used to in parts to enable the infrastructure as such, a good thing, but also to cater to Facebooks less amicable interests, essentially destroying the very habitat their users is working to improve.