We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
We Can’t Trust Facebook to Regulate Itself
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/opinion/facebook-regulation-incentive.html
205 comments
I agree, but I think these two are related and that's part of the reason why it's an issue. It's a knowledge = power situation.
FB have datasets designed to find those people who will register for a conference, sign up to a streaming service or buy a shoe. The same tools also work for "spreading fake news, etc." There are side effects to large scale use of this, beyond the basic. "Bubbles" was a first pass at describing it, but I think it understates the issue by putting the emphasis on groups of people, and implying insularity is the root cause. I think the truth is more individual focused. There are two types of groups. One is the type you could describe in terms of facebook's "social graph," people connected to eachother in various ways. Another is a segment. People who are not necessarily related to eachother, but "inform" on eaother statistically.
Finding a piece of content you will like is becoming finding a piece of news you will believe.
FB are now a news outlet, the biggest and most important one. I don't know if regulation is the best path to a better news media, it could also make things worse. But, what I'm worried about is that FB does not want to be a news outlet. They would like to maintain their "agregator" designation, like the news tab in google search. I'd like to see them abandon that position, and take on the role of news media more consciously and deliberately. Journalism has an ethic, it's not perfect but at least it recognizes that they play a responsible role in society. FB need to adopt something like this, regulaton or not. .
FB have datasets designed to find those people who will register for a conference, sign up to a streaming service or buy a shoe. The same tools also work for "spreading fake news, etc." There are side effects to large scale use of this, beyond the basic. "Bubbles" was a first pass at describing it, but I think it understates the issue by putting the emphasis on groups of people, and implying insularity is the root cause. I think the truth is more individual focused. There are two types of groups. One is the type you could describe in terms of facebook's "social graph," people connected to eachother in various ways. Another is a segment. People who are not necessarily related to eachother, but "inform" on eaother statistically.
Finding a piece of content you will like is becoming finding a piece of news you will believe.
FB are now a news outlet, the biggest and most important one. I don't know if regulation is the best path to a better news media, it could also make things worse. But, what I'm worried about is that FB does not want to be a news outlet. They would like to maintain their "agregator" designation, like the news tab in google search. I'd like to see them abandon that position, and take on the role of news media more consciously and deliberately. Journalism has an ethic, it's not perfect but at least it recognizes that they play a responsible role in society. FB need to adopt something like this, regulaton or not. .
I think the reasons for "Facebooks fake news problem" even being a story are two-fold: elites in the corporate "journalism" cabal understand that its a great distraction from the important discussion of data retention. & it also helps to shift the blame away from Hillary's party for losing the election because of a terribly run campaign.
Call it a conspiracy theory. I really don't see the actual cause being, primarily, anything other than those.
Call it a conspiracy theory. I really don't see the actual cause being, primarily, anything other than those.
> it also helps to shift the blame away from Hillary's party for losing the election because of a terribly run campaign
This doesn't have anything to do with Hillary or that whole "election hacking" story. If you've followed the hearings and the angles that US legislators have been taking on these companies it seems clear that most of them don't see this as being related to the elections at all.
From what I've seen the focus has been on the fact that foreign nation states are able to use the tools provided by these companies to target groups of people and then directly use the promotion and communication channels provided by these companies to pump propaganda to those groups.
And that this has been done already, specifically to instigate division and confrontation between groups within our society.
Side notes:
1. Maybe you think that their tools don't have an impact on people and this is all just hyperbole. Perhaps that's true, but if it is true then the business model they've been pitching to advertisers seems like hyperbole as well.
2. All of that aside. These few companies have quickly become the dominant gateway for which a majority of people access the internet. It's where they read news, talk to family and friends, organize events, keep all of their photos, keep their contact list, authenticate into other websites on the internet, get tracked by ads and social media buttons across the internet... None of which is inherently bad but it seems foolish for us to not keep them in check. We don't exist to make sure their companies survive. If society decides that the amount of risk and harm resulting from them outweighs the potential good in their current form then we should consider regulation.
This doesn't have anything to do with Hillary or that whole "election hacking" story. If you've followed the hearings and the angles that US legislators have been taking on these companies it seems clear that most of them don't see this as being related to the elections at all.
From what I've seen the focus has been on the fact that foreign nation states are able to use the tools provided by these companies to target groups of people and then directly use the promotion and communication channels provided by these companies to pump propaganda to those groups.
And that this has been done already, specifically to instigate division and confrontation between groups within our society.
Side notes:
1. Maybe you think that their tools don't have an impact on people and this is all just hyperbole. Perhaps that's true, but if it is true then the business model they've been pitching to advertisers seems like hyperbole as well.
2. All of that aside. These few companies have quickly become the dominant gateway for which a majority of people access the internet. It's where they read news, talk to family and friends, organize events, keep all of their photos, keep their contact list, authenticate into other websites on the internet, get tracked by ads and social media buttons across the internet... None of which is inherently bad but it seems foolish for us to not keep them in check. We don't exist to make sure their companies survive. If society decides that the amount of risk and harm resulting from them outweighs the potential good in their current form then we should consider regulation.
Regulation by whome, exactly? At least in its current state, I get to choose between my state-sponsored media attacks...
If your opaque point is that we need to break these companies up for... reasons... (Because maybe Russia-something?) Then I suppose I disagree with you less, but not on that principle.
It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. But educating is impossible because it would lead to a more informed public.
If your opaque point is that we need to break these companies up for... reasons... (Because maybe Russia-something?) Then I suppose I disagree with you less, but not on that principle.
It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. But educating is impossible because it would lead to a more informed public.
> Regulation by whome, exactly?
Regulation by publicly elected and representative officials in our democracy.
> It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing.
I'm not talking about censorship. My point was regarding the mass data collection and analysis of our personal information that's being done at an impressive scale by these for-profit companies without any form of oversight or transparency.
It isn't cool when the NSA does it and it isn't cool when they're doing it either. Especially not if they're actually profiting from selling our data to other people who are doing whoknowswhat. There is no incentive for them to be responsible.
Regulation by publicly elected and representative officials in our democracy.
> It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing.
I'm not talking about censorship. My point was regarding the mass data collection and analysis of our personal information that's being done at an impressive scale by these for-profit companies without any form of oversight or transparency.
It isn't cool when the NSA does it and it isn't cool when they're doing it either. Especially not if they're actually profiting from selling our data to other people who are doing whoknowswhat. There is no incentive for them to be responsible.
Publicly elected officials on what level? The FCC? What powers are we giving them?
When I hear a Senator Dianne Feinstein scolding a panel of tech giants, I don't hear a benevolent leader with our best interests at heart, I hear someone infantalizing me for their own gain.
If the topic is data retention, let's target everyone. No one should be safe unless they can justify it under scrutiny & demonstrate security.
If the topic is "fake news", then its a battle of definitions, & regulation is unconstitutional on any government level--no matter how you spin it.
When I hear a Senator Dianne Feinstein scolding a panel of tech giants, I don't hear a benevolent leader with our best interests at heart, I hear someone infantalizing me for their own gain.
If the topic is data retention, let's target everyone. No one should be safe unless they can justify it under scrutiny & demonstrate security.
If the topic is "fake news", then its a battle of definitions, & regulation is unconstitutional on any government level--no matter how you spin it.
Exactly, the reality is that there isn't really such a thing as "news" because it's always been opinionated. Fox news, CNN, etc have always been fake to a degree in that they aren't reporting core facts with no bias. Even when I see local news broadcasts about things that aren't political in nature they still use alarmist tactics to try to elicit emotions in the viewer. Many supposed news articles will present some facts but then try to infer things by asking questions or saying things like, "this may lead to x" without any source to back up this claim. The reality is that real news is boring as it's just presenting facts and letting people draw their own conclusions and I have never seen this be the way that news is presented in America at any point in my life. If we could somehow get to that point I think things would be much better.
I think you guys are looking past the point.
The definition of “Fake News,” that was being used when it started “trending” and the definition FB are now using in their anti-fakenews efforts is not inaccurate news, bad news, biased news or anything like that. It refers to a simple, common sense meaning of “fake.” Articles pretending to be news: written by a fictional journalists in a fictional publication, citing fictional sources at a fictional address.
Fake news did quickly become an insult that everyone (especially you -know-who) uses to flavour their scorn of regular news. …like the way “fraud,” or “whore” are used as insults.
This is not some impossibly abstract conversation about truth. It’s a simple conversation about spam.
The definition of “Fake News,” that was being used when it started “trending” and the definition FB are now using in their anti-fakenews efforts is not inaccurate news, bad news, biased news or anything like that. It refers to a simple, common sense meaning of “fake.” Articles pretending to be news: written by a fictional journalists in a fictional publication, citing fictional sources at a fictional address.
Fake news did quickly become an insult that everyone (especially you -know-who) uses to flavour their scorn of regular news. …like the way “fraud,” or “whore” are used as insults.
This is not some impossibly abstract conversation about truth. It’s a simple conversation about spam.
So if I'm still being emailed promotions for penile enhancement today, how are we going to regulate those promotions on a government level?
I'm genuinely asking. I don't intend for my question to be a slight against your argument.
I'm genuinely asking. I don't intend for my question to be a slight against your argument.
I don't know if regulations are necessary or useful here. I think you should buy the penis pills. Let me know if they're good
My point being that if the issue is spam, as you say, then why is spam-news different?
> it also helps to shift the blame away from Hillary's party for losing the election because of a terribly run campaign.
It also shifts the blame away from Americans who liked what Trump was saying.
A similar thing is happening in the UK with the brexit vote. People are now claiming that Russians bought some adverts. They want to deny the decades of Euroskepticism and misleading stories (bendy bananas anyone?), and years of anti-immigrant newspaper stories.
It also shifts the blame away from Americans who liked what Trump was saying.
A similar thing is happening in the UK with the brexit vote. People are now claiming that Russians bought some adverts. They want to deny the decades of Euroskepticism and misleading stories (bendy bananas anyone?), and years of anti-immigrant newspaper stories.
Honest question: why is it a problem that Facebook has personal data and uses it in their advertising platform?
No one is forced to give their data to Facebook. It's not a public utility. It's an entertainment site, first and foremost.
No one is forced to give their data to Facebook. It's not a public utility. It's an entertainment site, first and foremost.
> No one is forced to give their data to Facebook.
Neither do we have to. Facebook is grabbing it all anyway. With pre-emptive measures ala ad-, cookie and tracker blocking we can reduce the amount of data they get, but they still get something.
If they'd only collect data about their users, that would be totally fine. But they don't. They build shadow profiles of people who are not on FB and track them just the same way.
FB is a whole lot closer to Orwellian surveillance apparatus than it is to entertainment site.
Neither do we have to. Facebook is grabbing it all anyway. With pre-emptive measures ala ad-, cookie and tracker blocking we can reduce the amount of data they get, but they still get something.
If they'd only collect data about their users, that would be totally fine. But they don't. They build shadow profiles of people who are not on FB and track them just the same way.
FB is a whole lot closer to Orwellian surveillance apparatus than it is to entertainment site.
It's interesting to me how upset so many people got about the level of detail that the NSA collected while so many hand over their entire digital presence to FB and Google.
Maybe they think "you don't have to use FB"... By that logic "you didn't have to use AT&T or the internet at all" either.
Maybe they think "you don't have to use FB"... By that logic "you didn't have to use AT&T or the internet at all" either.
Public opinion is shaped a great deal by what and in what way the mass media covers a specific topic. There was a lot of uproar about NSA surveillance while it was in the news, which quickly died down as the headlines disappeared. Out of sight, out of mind.
And then there's also the thing that, arguably, Google and FB give those people something in return which they might consider worthwhile for just data. I'd question that the majority of the user population is aware of the implications of handing over data about themselves and specifically other people, who may or may not be okay with that.
And then there's also the thing that, arguably, Google and FB give those people something in return which they might consider worthwhile for just data. I'd question that the majority of the user population is aware of the implications of handing over data about themselves and specifically other people, who may or may not be okay with that.
> Out of sight, out of mind.
All the more reason to keep an eye on the people who control the page that so many people view their news from these days.
All the more reason to keep an eye on the people who control the page that so many people view their news from these days.
> Public opinion is shaped a great deal by what and in what way the mass media covers a specific topic.
Given that the mass media is in direct competition with FB, I wonder why they haven't destroyed FB already.
Given that the mass media is in direct competition with FB, I wonder why they haven't destroyed FB already.
The reason people were/are a bit more anxious about the NSA is because the government has the ability to put you in jail. And indeed we've seen some cases of evidence collected through mass surveillance being used in criminal cases through a mechanism called parallel construction.
All things considered, Facebook presents a similar level of risk, especially if nation states use it as a digital weapon as we've seen recently.
All things considered, Facebook presents a similar level of risk, especially if nation states use it as a digital weapon as we've seen recently.
Facebook is worser, in a certain way. If they want, they can socialy isolate you, without you even noticing, they can make you run with a bad crowd, they can manipulate your interests towards topics that eat your time and do not help you progress in life.
They can manipulate your social network, help your wife find someone more interested in her posts.
When the state tells you its on, its at least to your face.
When the state tells you its on, its at least to your face.
Being a public utility is not binary. Facebook is not as much a public utility than water, but more or a public utility than just being "an entertainment site".
Many social groups use Facebook to organize on. If an individual weren't on Facebook, they'd be much more socially isolated in the same way that if they didn't use a phone (considered a public utility), they'd also be more isolated. I suspect for some people, Facebook/Messenger/Whatsapp is more important than a telephone number.
Some services now require Facebook to use their service. For example, for people who can't afford to own a car, GetAround lets you rent neighbors cars, but they don't accept a government issued ID, only Facebook.
Many social groups use Facebook to organize on. If an individual weren't on Facebook, they'd be much more socially isolated in the same way that if they didn't use a phone (considered a public utility), they'd also be more isolated. I suspect for some people, Facebook/Messenger/Whatsapp is more important than a telephone number.
Some services now require Facebook to use their service. For example, for people who can't afford to own a car, GetAround lets you rent neighbors cars, but they don't accept a government issued ID, only Facebook.
I am not a fan of calling FB a utility. Are you ready to pay the taxes for a 5x buyout of FB when the government attempts to nationalize it? And what do you think its going to happen after the state has reins on it. Only bad things.
> And what do you think its going to happen after the state has reins on it. Only bad things.
This meme has to stop. In many countries universities are state-run, and they provide more value than most companies.
This meme has to stop. In many countries universities are state-run, and they provide more value than most companies.
Sure, some state-run universities are good. But that's just one example. There's many examples of things that govt's fail badly at. And many examples of things they manage OK, sometimes better than the private sector. It's not an closed case either way. I actually would be very worried if the US government were to run Facebook.
My preferred solution would therefore be along these lines:
- Universities develop social media algorithms that are provenly secure and respectful of privacy. "Federation" should handle issues of trust over network partitions.
- Governments (not a single one) decide if they want to provide computing infrastructure for said algorithms. Alternatively, users could host their own social networks or partitions thereof.
- Big companies provide hardware and maintenance. (And that's all they do. I.e., hands off of our valuable data).
Basically, that's a lot like how the internet functioned when it just started (Universities and DARPA developing the concepts, and companies doing just hardware).
- Universities develop social media algorithms that are provenly secure and respectful of privacy. "Federation" should handle issues of trust over network partitions.
- Governments (not a single one) decide if they want to provide computing infrastructure for said algorithms. Alternatively, users could host their own social networks or partitions thereof.
- Big companies provide hardware and maintenance. (And that's all they do. I.e., hands off of our valuable data).
Basically, that's a lot like how the internet functioned when it just started (Universities and DARPA developing the concepts, and companies doing just hardware).
As someone who spent a (wasted) decade in academia finding out a lot of published research was faked, keep your academic hands off of my business models. And keep your government hands off of my algorithms. FB stupidity and greed aside, I still trust the free market over its less-appealing alternatives.
> There's many examples of things that govt's fail badly at
There are also countless examples of privatisation disasters. Source: am British.
There are also countless examples of privatisation disasters. Source: am British.
It's almost as if boiling something complicated down to "government vs private companies" and saying "one is good and the other is evil" is wrong and stupid.
Facebook is media, not a college. Its like the gov buying Fox News. Completely different cases.
Efficiency is out of the question as well. You cant argue the State will do it better. It wont. And in this case, it can even be harmful.
Efficiency is out of the question as well. You cant argue the State will do it better. It wont. And in this case, it can even be harmful.
I don't think it has to _stop_ per se. It's a political opinion and should be treated as such. Whether it is an opinion that has a place on Hackernews is another question.
"No one is forced to give their data to Facebook"
With shadow profiles, they are being forced to give their data to Facebook or live like an outcast.
How intrusive are the shadow profiles actually? We will know only if their data collection process (as well as the data collection process for all these ad-first companies) is completely and thoroughly investigated.
With shadow profiles, they are being forced to give their data to Facebook or live like an outcast.
How intrusive are the shadow profiles actually? We will know only if their data collection process (as well as the data collection process for all these ad-first companies) is completely and thoroughly investigated.
I do see a problem that I dont know what data facebook has about me and how they are using it. If we consider that data to be part of your identity, there is no reason for facebook to have the exclusive access to it. I want it myself.
By having it myself, I have the technical capacity to cut the middleman, which is better for me and for the advertisers that target me.
By having it myself, I have the technical capacity to cut the middleman, which is better for me and for the advertisers that target me.
Supposedly you can download it[1], or ask for it if you don't have an account[2].
(This is not a defense of FB, only trying to be useful)
[1] https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/
[2] https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/180237885820953
(This is not a defense of FB, only trying to be useful)
[1] https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/
[2] https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/180237885820953
Good tip! I will check it out right now. I suspect tho, that this information will not cover all the bases. Mainly, any piece of information facebook ever shared with a third party source should be included.
The above statement has a high reach: information fb uses to then deduce something for advertisers has to be included. It doesnt work immediately, so I will have to wait analyze what they share. Its certainly good that they do.
EDIT: just looked at the docs and it is better than I thought but might not be probably enough to get the effect I want to achieve.
ITs revelatory that it contains all the chats I ever had, and would find that hard to share with anyone, yet, clearly FB has it .
The above statement has a high reach: information fb uses to then deduce something for advertisers has to be included. It doesnt work immediately, so I will have to wait analyze what they share. Its certainly good that they do.
EDIT: just looked at the docs and it is better than I thought but might not be probably enough to get the effect I want to achieve.
ITs revelatory that it contains all the chats I ever had, and would find that hard to share with anyone, yet, clearly FB has it .
I tried several times to do that in the months leading up to finally deactivating my FB account and never received any of my own data, nor any acknowledgement of my requests to have my data deleted.
If you're an EU citizen, please consider sending a complaint to your national privacy commission or equivalent.
[deleted]
> It's an entertainment site, first and foremost.
Is it? I've always seen it pitched as a communication service with emphasis on staying in touch with friends and always being connected with loved ones.
Is it? I've always seen it pitched as a communication service with emphasis on staying in touch with friends and always being connected with loved ones.
No one is forced to own a bank account. Banks are not a public utility. They’re just a handy tool, first and foremost.
Why should they be regulated?
Because the more ubiquitous a service becomes, the more it is ingrained in everyday life, the harder it is to avoid. And it should be regulated.
After all, nobody is forcing you to have and use electricity. So why should power companies be regulated?
Or car manufacturers. Or anything really.
Because it makes society a better place.
Why should they be regulated?
Because the more ubiquitous a service becomes, the more it is ingrained in everyday life, the harder it is to avoid. And it should be regulated.
After all, nobody is forcing you to have and use electricity. So why should power companies be regulated?
Or car manufacturers. Or anything really.
Because it makes society a better place.
> After all, nobody is forcing you to have and use electricity. So why should power companies be regulated?
It is absolutely possible to have privatized power supply.
It is absolutely possible to have privatized power supply.
Regulated and privatized are not mutually exclusive, some activity can be privatized and regulated in the same time.
Edit: to elaborate a little, one shows the ownership form and the other how free of constrains is that activity on the market.
Edit: to elaborate a little, one shows the ownership form and the other how free of constrains is that activity on the market.
> It is absolutely possible to have privatized power supply.
It is. And power companies should be regulated anyway.
For example: to provide current within specific parameters so the white smoke doesn’t escape our devices.
It is. And power companies should be regulated anyway.
For example: to provide current within specific parameters so the white smoke doesn’t escape our devices.
They are network monopoly - it makes no sense to use other site where I have no one to speak with.
Same with Google - website optimise for Google and Google ranks them higher. Network effect completely captured the market.
Another word for it is 'experience monopoly' - there is no one else that can offer remotely useful to it.
Same with Google - website optimise for Google and Google ranks them higher. Network effect completely captured the market.
Another word for it is 'experience monopoly' - there is no one else that can offer remotely useful to it.
It is not a universal premise that anything formally voluntary is good and proper. That's more of a libertarian axiom, isn't it?
Most people recognize that behaviors that can be seen as voluntary agreements between independent parties can still be problematically imbalanced or in need of "regulation."
It's not reasonable to just ignore the power of network operators. How do you think about net neutrality?
Most people recognize that behaviors that can be seen as voluntary agreements between independent parties can still be problematically imbalanced or in need of "regulation."
It's not reasonable to just ignore the power of network operators. How do you think about net neutrality?
The difference between Facebook and an ISP is that ISPs are, for all intents and purposes, a natural monopoly. There is an enormous cost associated with laying cable and negotiating the rights-of-way with the thousands of affected parcels to make even a tiny local network. It makes sense to enforce net neutrality because it's impossible to switch to a different ISP in many markets, just as it's impossible to switch to a different water provider or sewage system provider.
Facebook is a social media website. It doesn't provide a basic, necessary service. It doesn't operate under the physical constraints that utilities do, and it's not impossible to compete with Facebook, as evidenced by the numerous social media services out there like Snapchat, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, LinkedIn, Google+, Qzone (China), and Sina Weibo (China).
I'm certainly not against regulation as a general concept. The free market does not produce the best, ethical incentives in all cases. That being said, I fail to see why regulating Facebook is even necessary, and what that would look like in practice.
People on HN seem to take as a given that Facebook having loads of personal data is somehow a bad or dangerous thing. Why? Facebook has 2 billion users. That's 25% of the human population. 2 billion people voluntarily created profiles, provided details about themselves like their age and relationship status, and uploaded photos of themselves, their friends, and their families. For those 2 billion people, the "cost" of "losing privacy" was worth it to them. Face it, nobody outside of the tiny HN bubble cares about the security of their vacation photos or cat pics, nor should they.
Facebook is a social media website. It doesn't provide a basic, necessary service. It doesn't operate under the physical constraints that utilities do, and it's not impossible to compete with Facebook, as evidenced by the numerous social media services out there like Snapchat, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, LinkedIn, Google+, Qzone (China), and Sina Weibo (China).
I'm certainly not against regulation as a general concept. The free market does not produce the best, ethical incentives in all cases. That being said, I fail to see why regulating Facebook is even necessary, and what that would look like in practice.
People on HN seem to take as a given that Facebook having loads of personal data is somehow a bad or dangerous thing. Why? Facebook has 2 billion users. That's 25% of the human population. 2 billion people voluntarily created profiles, provided details about themselves like their age and relationship status, and uploaded photos of themselves, their friends, and their families. For those 2 billion people, the "cost" of "losing privacy" was worth it to them. Face it, nobody outside of the tiny HN bubble cares about the security of their vacation photos or cat pics, nor should they.
Actually, Yes I am. If I attend an event, my friends and acquaintances will often upload pictures of me. I do not have a Facebook account, but they are known to operate shadow profiles.
I wonder how detailed they are. If a few friends of yours have your name and number in their phone, and they have WhatsApp, Facebook (which owns WhatsApp) already has your name, number and a network of your friends (especially if those WhatsApp users also connected their Facebook account, or entered their WhatsApp ID (their phone number) to their FB profile.
And people say Facebook allows companies to upload their customer data to Facebook so they can be targeted through ads on FB, so it would be possible (in theory, not sure about the practice) that Facebook has things like your address and income level as well, for example if you ever filled a marketing survey.
And people say Facebook allows companies to upload their customer data to Facebook so they can be targeted through ads on FB, so it would be possible (in theory, not sure about the practice) that Facebook has things like your address and income level as well, for example if you ever filled a marketing survey.
[deleted]
These social networks are becoming de facto public utilities. For example when I was trying to find out why my passport application was late, the only way to ask for an update was via Twitter.
I think what should be regulated above all is their usage of the social graph. For example, banning someone from the social network should be subject to due process
>For example, banning someone from the social network should be subject to due process
Speaking as someone who often feels disconnected due to their refusal to accept facebook TOS, I would come at this from a very different direction.
Facebook should be required to provide a standardized API and data storage format that allows syndication with other social networks and allows users to transition their data to other social networks.
Think "Pacific Railway Act 1863" for social networks. You can build as much infrastructure as you like, but it _must_ be inter-operable with your competitors.
Then Facebook can ban who they like, there's nothing stopping people from using a different provider.
Speaking as someone who often feels disconnected due to their refusal to accept facebook TOS, I would come at this from a very different direction.
Facebook should be required to provide a standardized API and data storage format that allows syndication with other social networks and allows users to transition their data to other social networks.
Think "Pacific Railway Act 1863" for social networks. You can build as much infrastructure as you like, but it _must_ be inter-operable with your competitors.
Then Facebook can ban who they like, there's nothing stopping people from using a different provider.
I'm curious if you've found a social network who's TOS you find acceptable?
Sounds like a fun way to bankrupt Facebook :) creating an account is really cheap.
The Scarlet letter of this era
At the risk of falling prey to "WhatAboutism" it is hard for me to be concerned here when we give such free reign to credit agencies and other traditional corporate entities who can't be arsed to even keep their data secure. That has affected and inconvenienced me personally as opposed to the annoying buzz from the dumbasses who used to get their reality from a daily two hour hate from a minority of right-leaning pundits and who now thrive on fake news from Facebook and Twitter.
Their pre-existing intellectual incuriosity is the root problem IMO, not the current medium on which they gorge their ignorance. And by the time the same clowns in Congress who think it's hunky dory to tax grad student tuition waivers craft anything to regulate Facebook, there will be a new and scarier kid on the block extracting and analyzing the information at a whole new unforeseen level.
As others have said, large corporations are effectively the malevolent AIs Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking keep squawking about. Good luck with regulating that.
Their pre-existing intellectual incuriosity is the root problem IMO, not the current medium on which they gorge their ignorance. And by the time the same clowns in Congress who think it's hunky dory to tax grad student tuition waivers craft anything to regulate Facebook, there will be a new and scarier kid on the block extracting and analyzing the information at a whole new unforeseen level.
As others have said, large corporations are effectively the malevolent AIs Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking keep squawking about. Good luck with regulating that.
I'd typically be the first person to call you out on distracting from the core point, but in this case I agree wholeheartedly; I don't think you fall prey to the typical anti-patterns of whataboutism in that the broader context of American regulation and our prioritization of goals is very relevant to this discussion.
The entire "Fake news" epidemic seems absurd to me. (and frankly, an intentional distraction) Tabloids have been around literally my entire life. The only difference now is that people apparently can no longer distinguish them from fact. (Not to mention as far back as our first presidents, you can find newspaper articles trumpeting that e.g. Jefferson was in a pact with Satan and his alcoholism would overturn the country. Somehow America prevailed then; what is different now.)
Meanwhile, we have public schools in some states that can't afford more than 4 days a week, politicians for whom lying is absolutely a pathology with no one holding them accountable, and a literacy/numeracy rate far below many other first world countries.
I have many thoughts on why this comes to pass but the cynic in me is focused heavily on that the incentives in the current system (for the current power-players at least) do not align with spending resources to have a highly educated population en-masse.
The entire "Fake news" epidemic seems absurd to me. (and frankly, an intentional distraction) Tabloids have been around literally my entire life. The only difference now is that people apparently can no longer distinguish them from fact. (Not to mention as far back as our first presidents, you can find newspaper articles trumpeting that e.g. Jefferson was in a pact with Satan and his alcoholism would overturn the country. Somehow America prevailed then; what is different now.)
Meanwhile, we have public schools in some states that can't afford more than 4 days a week, politicians for whom lying is absolutely a pathology with no one holding them accountable, and a literacy/numeracy rate far below many other first world countries.
I have many thoughts on why this comes to pass but the cynic in me is focused heavily on that the incentives in the current system (for the current power-players at least) do not align with spending resources to have a highly educated population en-masse.
I would argue that the cause of the "Fake news" epidemic is partially due to the social media. Specifically, Information Overload is to blame.
A few decades back we had and now loosing: - Traceable reputation -- which is now lost, and much harder to learn in our uncontrolled, random and sparse feed interactions. - Focus on topic -- social crises were build up, considered, reflected on. Nowadays, we moved into the realm of emotional reactions. Noone is expected to have mental capacity to consume as many pieces of disjoint information as we do today on social media. In an average feed, a president eats a kid, and a cat does a funny trick one after another.
The prime incentives in the current social system is the instant gratification. This new system is easy to abuse, as we are moving further away from analytical to emotional consumption.
A few decades back we had and now loosing: - Traceable reputation -- which is now lost, and much harder to learn in our uncontrolled, random and sparse feed interactions. - Focus on topic -- social crises were build up, considered, reflected on. Nowadays, we moved into the realm of emotional reactions. Noone is expected to have mental capacity to consume as many pieces of disjoint information as we do today on social media. In an average feed, a president eats a kid, and a cat does a funny trick one after another.
The prime incentives in the current social system is the instant gratification. This new system is easy to abuse, as we are moving further away from analytical to emotional consumption.
> Information Overload is to blame.
The information overload is due to centralization and advertising.
Individuals can easily overcome information overload via compartmentalization, but Facebook works directly against that strategy by mixing sources, and mixing in advertisements.
What we need to provide individuals is a decentralized communication network that has all the features and accessibility users want.
The information overload is due to centralization and advertising.
Individuals can easily overcome information overload via compartmentalization, but Facebook works directly against that strategy by mixing sources, and mixing in advertisements.
What we need to provide individuals is a decentralized communication network that has all the features and accessibility users want.
> Facebook needs to be regulated more tightly, or broken up so that no single entity controls all of its data.
What would a break-up of Facebook look like? The most famous modern example is the breakup of Bell, but the infrastructure lent itself to a natural geographical split. It's not entirely obvious if a geographic split would work for FB, and it's not entirely obvious along what planes one could split up the company.
What would a break-up of Facebook look like? The most famous modern example is the breakup of Bell, but the infrastructure lent itself to a natural geographical split. It's not entirely obvious if a geographic split would work for FB, and it's not entirely obvious along what planes one could split up the company.
Not necessarily related to the problems discussed by the article, but I could definitely see a logical split in terms of the non-Facebook.com platforms that Facebook has acquired (Instagram, Whatsapp, etc).
Facebook being able to eat up any and every new form of social media is worrisome in its own right. This recent article in particular discusses some pretty solid points: https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...
Facebook being able to eat up any and every new form of social media is worrisome in its own right. This recent article in particular discusses some pretty solid points: https://stratechery.com/2017/why-facebook-shouldnt-be-allowe...
During the U.S. government's long antitrust investigation of IBM (1969-1982) the company basically stopped making any acquisitions -- because it felt those were sure to be vetoed and to reinforce trust-busters' belief that something bad was afoot.
A long-running antitrust probe of FB or other tech giants might have a similar chilling effect on growth plans, even if the case itself doesn't result in big changes.
A long-running antitrust probe of FB or other tech giants might have a similar chilling effect on growth plans, even if the case itself doesn't result in big changes.
One option would be to Just Do It, just break the company up along that sort of arbitrary line, and expect that that will push the Baby Faces [1] to be forced to communicate with federation protocols, which could also let others in to play too. One would imagine a condition of the breakup would be that any such federation protocol that was developed could not privilege the Baby Faces amoungst each other.
It isn't necessarily the best choice, but it is one choice. I'm not sure there's necessarily a much better one, either. It's a very big problem to try to wrap your head around.
[1]: I think you heard it here first, though I can't promise nobody else has come up with that. I haven't heard it before to my knowledge.
It isn't necessarily the best choice, but it is one choice. I'm not sure there's necessarily a much better one, either. It's a very big problem to try to wrap your head around.
[1]: I think you heard it here first, though I can't promise nobody else has come up with that. I haven't heard it before to my knowledge.
I think this is definitely a very interesting line of discussion for this problem.
I really like the idea of essentially forcing federation protocols to be developed. E-mail was an overwhelming success -- we should look for ways to repeat that success with other aspects.
I really like the idea of essentially forcing federation protocols to be developed. E-mail was an overwhelming success -- we should look for ways to repeat that success with other aspects.
What about developing federated protocols by 'just doing it'.
How about creating a open standard for social media,i.e, open API so that no matter what platform you use, you can connect to ppl on other platforms. This should introduce more competition in the market without creating a loophole to regulate internet.
so ppl would be able to choose platform based on variety of variables like advertisements, data collection, looks, usability.... just an idea
so ppl would be able to choose platform based on variety of variables like advertisements, data collection, looks, usability.... just an idea
OStatus[1] and ActivityPub[2][3] already exist.
[1]: https://www.w3.org/community/ostatus/wiki/images/9/93/OStatu...
[2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
[3]: http://activitypub.rocks/
[1]: https://www.w3.org/community/ostatus/wiki/images/9/93/OStatu...
[2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
[3]: http://activitypub.rocks/
cool...last I heard about MediaGoblin (a self-hosted YouTube/flicker media-sharing clone), they were trying to implement ActivityPub so that MediaGoblin instances could be federated. However, I haven't seen any updated news from them in over a year.
https://mediagoblin.org/news/tpac-2016-and-review-activitypu...
https://mediagoblin.org/news/tpac-2016-and-review-activitypu...
This is actually quite an excellent idea, and one which hadn't occured to me before. Forcing federation by giving a deadline for a split (plus open API) seems like a very sensible solution - it preserves the free market and creates an opportunity for new entrants.
Today's critical problem soon becomes yesterday's yawn.
In 2003, Microsoft was ordered by EU to stop bundling OS with browser, media player and other software that seemed so important to them at the time. MS complied.
We look back now and think so what? The EU wasn't really wrong, so much as too focused on the issue-of-the-month.
Regulation of technology is necessarily painting in slow-motion with indelible paint using a broad brush.
In 2003, Microsoft was ordered by EU to stop bundling OS with browser, media player and other software that seemed so important to them at the time. MS complied.
We look back now and think so what? The EU wasn't really wrong, so much as too focused on the issue-of-the-month.
Regulation of technology is necessarily painting in slow-motion with indelible paint using a broad brush.
I think that's a valid point on its own, but attacking Microsoft's browser was attacking their future belief about where things were going and preventing them from colonizing a space that may become popular in the future. Actually breaking up Facebook is a different proposition; we'd never be able to tell it wasn't necessary because the post-breakup world would be too different for us to ever know that.
We can't even compare to hypothetically breaking up Microsoft, because we could and probably still would have broken it up along product lines. Facebook is definitely more like Standard Oil in the sense that there isn't such a clear line to break the company up on.
Another difficult aspect of this problem is that the oil companies had physically distributed employees. Who is going to be assigned to the part of Facebook responsible for Florida? (Does Facebook even have any non-SV offices? Honest question, I have no idea.) The newly-created business to serve "the Southeast United States" without being located there is going to face some headwinds as the Baby Faces diversify. There's also some good questions around how to prevent one of them from simply winning in a way that a Michigan Baby Bell customer couldn't just decide to use Pacific Bell.
We can't even compare to hypothetically breaking up Microsoft, because we could and probably still would have broken it up along product lines. Facebook is definitely more like Standard Oil in the sense that there isn't such a clear line to break the company up on.
Another difficult aspect of this problem is that the oil companies had physically distributed employees. Who is going to be assigned to the part of Facebook responsible for Florida? (Does Facebook even have any non-SV offices? Honest question, I have no idea.) The newly-created business to serve "the Southeast United States" without being located there is going to face some headwinds as the Baby Faces diversify. There's also some good questions around how to prevent one of them from simply winning in a way that a Michigan Baby Bell customer couldn't just decide to use Pacific Bell.
Microsoft never stopped self-believing throughout the Ballmer era. Certainly not as a result of any EU ruling.
Break-up is a misguided approach. In the case of SO, it only served to make the consequently-more-highly-valued parts more acceptable to, and the whole more deeply integrated into society.
I think technology will again be the solution to today's evil-of-the-month. Which is not to belittle these real and important issues.
Break-up is a misguided approach. In the case of SO, it only served to make the consequently-more-highly-valued parts more acceptable to, and the whole more deeply integrated into society.
I think technology will again be the solution to today's evil-of-the-month. Which is not to belittle these real and important issues.
> What would a break-up of Facebook look like?
1) Publish open APIs that enable federation between Facebook-like services 2) Split Facebook.com into three companies - Facebook the infrastructure company, Facebook the we-sell-advertisements-to-our-users-plus-sell-unprocessed-user-data company, and Facebook the we-process-user-data-to-sell-insights-useful-for-advertising company. Establish legal walls between these companies to ensure that they only communicate with each other through their APIs. 3) Enforce federation by splitting the middle "we actually host users and their walls and their data" company along state lines and international borders, so that they are more beholden to local authorities and jurisdictions.
1) Publish open APIs that enable federation between Facebook-like services 2) Split Facebook.com into three companies - Facebook the infrastructure company, Facebook the we-sell-advertisements-to-our-users-plus-sell-unprocessed-user-data company, and Facebook the we-process-user-data-to-sell-insights-useful-for-advertising company. Establish legal walls between these companies to ensure that they only communicate with each other through their APIs. 3) Enforce federation by splitting the middle "we actually host users and their walls and their data" company along state lines and international borders, so that they are more beholden to local authorities and jurisdictions.
> Enforce federation by splitting the middle "we actually host users and their walls and their data" company along state lines and international borders, so that they are more beholden to local authorities and jurisdictions.
this would push up the costs massively. Every single state int he US requiring its own data centre. And what do you do if I have a friend in another state and share a post with them? who has the legal power to block that post?
this would push up the costs massively. Every single state int he US requiring its own data centre. And what do you do if I have a friend in another state and share a post with them? who has the legal power to block that post?
I didn't call for the infrastructure company to be split up along state lines, just the company doing the equivalent of being the Mastodon admins for a given state's instance. So, at least in the beginning, no new data centers need to be constructed. Because the API is publicly published, new companies may spring up to sell their own implementations of the FacebookInfrastructure API, and existing infrastructure businesses (AWS, GCE, OpenShift, etc.) may decide to write their own implementations as well, which provides more competition.
Both states have the power the block - the state hosting the post may block the post from being posted on it's instance, and the state accessing the post may block the post from being seen. Again, because the API is publicly available, oppressive outcomes will probably result in competing solutions implementing the federated API and adopting more liberal administration.
Both states have the power the block - the state hosting the post may block the post from being posted on it's instance, and the state accessing the post may block the post from being seen. Again, because the API is publicly available, oppressive outcomes will probably result in competing solutions implementing the federated API and adopting more liberal administration.
I could imagine a four way split as follows:
Instagram Whatsapp Facebook the site, which is required to sell its user data to third parties (think large ad services) Facebook the advertising service, which buys userdata & advertising space from Facebook the site and sells it to third parties.
The final two separations are not particularly likely in my opinion.
Instagram Whatsapp Facebook the site, which is required to sell its user data to third parties (think large ad services) Facebook the advertising service, which buys userdata & advertising space from Facebook the site and sells it to third parties.
The final two separations are not particularly likely in my opinion.
The most relevant example would be the break up of NBC / ABC [1] in the early days of broadcasting. They were simply split into two companies that do exactly the same thing, but were now natural competitors
We could do the same with Facebook. Force them to segregate out different demographics (maybe by continent)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Red_Network
We could do the same with Facebook. Force them to segregate out different demographics (maybe by continent)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_Red_Network
So I could no longer be Facebook friends with my friends on different continents?
No, they would be forced to allow friendships to span company-wall boundaries.
So we split Facebook into multiple companies which must of necessity coordinate all their activities with each other?
Are e-mail providers "multiple companies which must of necessity coordinate all their activities with each other"? Sure, but when you put it that way it sounds nefarious. The underlying idea here, if I understand it correctly, is to force Facebook into defining protocols for what they do - something closer to e-mail than the current Facebook model.
Sounds like a little creative reimagining of PubSub (hell, even RSS) would make this more than possible.
Works pretty well for the global phone system, doesn't it?
> What would a break-up of Facebook look like?
An interesting question. The network effect - the requirement that users can interact with each other - obviously complicates it. Here are a few ideas, which could also be combined in some ways:
A. Eliminate the vertical integration: Infrastructure, UI, advertising, etc. I'm not sure that resolution, by itself, would sufficiently address the problems mentioned in the article.
B. Break it up horizontally, whether geographically or some other arbitrary way, and require they all follow open standards that allow interoperability. If you think of it, that's no different than the Bell breakup - they remained interoperable; people using one post-AT&T company could call someone on another.
C. Both A & B: Different companies could create different UIs, as one example, competing to provide different kinds of user experiences to different markets - one-size-fits-all probably isn't the best solution anyway, especially for an industry selling to every subculture on the globe. The same could apply to other layers, such as advertising: B2B analytics companies would compete to sell differentiated services to advertisers. (It would be essential, IMHO, that the new social network system provide users with opt-out, complete privacy - maybe they could sell their personal info to competing buyers of it.)
The more I think about it, the better it sounds. From this perspective Facebook seems like an awkward monopoly - trying to be all things, on so many layers, to all people and businesses, profiting from monopolistic control, and preventing what seems like (at first impression) the vast innovations that competition would bring if it was opened up.
My realization is this: There's no reason one company must run the entire social network for users to benefit from network effects. Plenty of systems provide network effect benefits without central control - the entire Internet and its protocol stacks, the web, email ...
An interesting question. The network effect - the requirement that users can interact with each other - obviously complicates it. Here are a few ideas, which could also be combined in some ways:
A. Eliminate the vertical integration: Infrastructure, UI, advertising, etc. I'm not sure that resolution, by itself, would sufficiently address the problems mentioned in the article.
B. Break it up horizontally, whether geographically or some other arbitrary way, and require they all follow open standards that allow interoperability. If you think of it, that's no different than the Bell breakup - they remained interoperable; people using one post-AT&T company could call someone on another.
C. Both A & B: Different companies could create different UIs, as one example, competing to provide different kinds of user experiences to different markets - one-size-fits-all probably isn't the best solution anyway, especially for an industry selling to every subculture on the globe. The same could apply to other layers, such as advertising: B2B analytics companies would compete to sell differentiated services to advertisers. (It would be essential, IMHO, that the new social network system provide users with opt-out, complete privacy - maybe they could sell their personal info to competing buyers of it.)
The more I think about it, the better it sounds. From this perspective Facebook seems like an awkward monopoly - trying to be all things, on so many layers, to all people and businesses, profiting from monopolistic control, and preventing what seems like (at first impression) the vast innovations that competition would bring if it was opened up.
My realization is this: There's no reason one company must run the entire social network for users to benefit from network effects. Plenty of systems provide network effect benefits without central control - the entire Internet and its protocol stacks, the web, email ...
[deleted]
Been thinking about this very question since having this conversation with a friend last week.
How about making Facebook give all its data back to users? All the data, photos, metadata, social graph - all of it.
Open source the social graph and give the users their data... would that make sense? Or just create a security nightmare?
How about making Facebook give all its data back to users? All the data, photos, metadata, social graph - all of it.
Open source the social graph and give the users their data... would that make sense? Or just create a security nightmare?
You mean this data? https://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467
I dont trust NYTIMES to regulate itself either, or any other major news outlet there. Or any oil company, or big food corporation, or any militar company. Or the department of defense.
I just dont know what is the ideal solution ,but state regulation is not the answer. It looks very dangerous.
We trust the government to regulate and control all sorts of things (tv, radio communication bandwidth, some local utilities) I don’t see why having some sort of oversight and rules governing what Facebook can do with data it collects is a problem. At the very least guaranteeing consumers access to all the data Facebook has about them could be a start.
All of those examples you give are a) easily identifiable (e.g you are transmitting on a particular frequency) and b) scarce due to very high barriers to entry (e.g betting a power utility).
Web sites are different. Facebook is just one end of a spectrum of thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of electronic destinations that come and go, and cost a few bucks to operate.
Regulations aimed at Facebook would potentially end up targeting every web site with user generated content.
Web sites are different. Facebook is just one end of a spectrum of thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of electronic destinations that come and go, and cost a few bucks to operate.
Regulations aimed at Facebook would potentially end up targeting every web site with user generated content.
I really wonder if the NYT does this piece to bargain a deal with facebook of some sort. Which kind of company calls for regulation on another company? The nerve!
However, I do sympathize on how much facebook is getting from its network effected position. It looks impossible to dethrone. Same for google.
I think the change has to come from how users deal with their own data. If you as a consumer had unlimited access to your data, you could potentially resell it to someone else, forcing facebook and the likes to compete on price. The key here is that the data has to be owned by the consumer, not by facebook itself.
However, I do sympathize on how much facebook is getting from its network effected position. It looks impossible to dethrone. Same for google.
I think the change has to come from how users deal with their own data. If you as a consumer had unlimited access to your data, you could potentially resell it to someone else, forcing facebook and the likes to compete on price. The key here is that the data has to be owned by the consumer, not by facebook itself.
How do you distrust governments and Google, Apple, Facebook, Samsung, HTC, Verizon, Comcast, etc., while still using the internet meaningfully, or really, participate in society meaningfully? In the current climate pretty much everybody understands, on some level, that by using "the internet" you are letting unknown third parties create a market out of your private life at no compensation to you beyond access to their "service". Yet we all continue tapping away on our shiny screens. In many ways it's really a deplorable, unacceptable situation.
It sounds like you distrust these companies too while using the internet meaningfully. Distrusting someone doesn't necessarily mean you avoid any interaction with them at all.
Everyone understands that letting third parties sell your personal data at no cost to you is what happens when you use the internet, but it doesn't have to be that way.
With some meaningful regulation, we could put a stop to this overnight. The internet existed and flourished before this manipulative business model became the norm, and it would exist if we outlawed it. We wouldn't even need to outlaw it, just require explicit written consent to sell personal data.
Can you imagine the ramifications? Once you eliminate the lazy, tired, and frankly intellectually barren model of "make a mediocre service that sucks enough personal data from our users so we can sell ads against them", startups could go back to designing products that solve interesting problems that people are willing to pay for!
With some meaningful regulation, we could put a stop to this overnight. The internet existed and flourished before this manipulative business model became the norm, and it would exist if we outlawed it. We wouldn't even need to outlaw it, just require explicit written consent to sell personal data.
Can you imagine the ramifications? Once you eliminate the lazy, tired, and frankly intellectually barren model of "make a mediocre service that sucks enough personal data from our users so we can sell ads against them", startups could go back to designing products that solve interesting problems that people are willing to pay for!
What does "sell your personal data" mean? Facebook (and Google) doesn't do that - it's much more profitable to keep it guarded so you can charge for services based on it (like ads) again and again.
So what specifically would that regulation say?
So what specifically would that regulation say?
You no longer have options.
In the end, all systems must have some form of regulator - from engines to code. If you are lucky, you create a governing function by playing engine forces against each other.
Demand is modulated by the ability of a pipe to supply fuel for example.
But most systems may not be with a self governable/equilibrium point. OR they may have one, but it is obviously repugnant to the purpose of the system.
It is then only logical, that a governing system is introduced to deal with the problem within the confines of what is human and practical.
The alternative is not necessarily something of value.
In the end, all systems must have some form of regulator - from engines to code. If you are lucky, you create a governing function by playing engine forces against each other.
Demand is modulated by the ability of a pipe to supply fuel for example.
But most systems may not be with a self governable/equilibrium point. OR they may have one, but it is obviously repugnant to the purpose of the system.
It is then only logical, that a governing system is introduced to deal with the problem within the confines of what is human and practical.
The alternative is not necessarily something of value.
Nytimes has nowhere near the influence facebook does, and it’s way less unhealthy of a behavior as one of myriad similar sources. They average out to being harder to manipulate than facebook is.
Or at the very least, more expensive.
Or at the very least, more expensive.
We do regulate the NYTIMES, it's called libel laws. If the NYTIMES publishes a false article about you to their millions of readers, you can sue them.
Let's suppose a false rumor about you spread to hundreds of millions of readers on Facebook. You're shit out of luck and Facebook doesn't have to pay a dime. Germany however might change that with the new law.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41042266
Let's suppose a false rumor about you spread to hundreds of millions of readers on Facebook. You're shit out of luck and Facebook doesn't have to pay a dime. Germany however might change that with the new law.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41042266
A democratic state is (at least to some extent) accountable to its citizens. Facebook is only accountable to Mark Zuckerberg.
Governments' accountability to their citizens seems to be weak at the best of time, and giving the government control over the channels used by those citizens to communicate and co-ordinate with each other certainly isn't going to help with that.
And to its users.
Facebook is accountable to their customers, which are the firms that they sell ads to.
Facebook is accountable to their users in the same way a farmer is accountable to his livestock.
Facebook is accountable to their users in the same way a farmer is accountable to his livestock.
I don't think we can break up Google or Facebook like AT&T or Standard Oil. The data economy requires new antitrust tools, which the Economist wrote about recently:
"A break-up would be highly disruptive and slow down innovation. It is likely that a Googlet or a Babyface would quickly become dominant again."[1]
Federated social networks will never catch on if they require more work from the user for likely less utility.
Facebook is also nothing like MySpace. This comparison is tired: Facebook is orders of magnitude larger than MySpace ever was. It's not going to get squashed away by a competitor, especially given its ability (alongside Google, Amazon) to buy up would-be competitors while they're young.
I also quite dislike the idea of regulating Facebook as a utility, as I dislike the idea of that tight coupling with government. Facebook quickly becomes a tool for coercion, propaganda, and oppression.
There needs to be a new set of rules built around enforcing competition around the data economy. The real risk is that a couple small players completely shut the door to new competition (which leads to more improper use of data as a few players have all of it). Regulators need to get smarter about blocking mergers (like FB and WhatsApp). New rules, like enforcing data sharing, need to be explored (although this reveals a big risk for data privacy).
[1]: https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21721634-how-it-shap...
"A break-up would be highly disruptive and slow down innovation. It is likely that a Googlet or a Babyface would quickly become dominant again."[1]
Federated social networks will never catch on if they require more work from the user for likely less utility.
Facebook is also nothing like MySpace. This comparison is tired: Facebook is orders of magnitude larger than MySpace ever was. It's not going to get squashed away by a competitor, especially given its ability (alongside Google, Amazon) to buy up would-be competitors while they're young.
I also quite dislike the idea of regulating Facebook as a utility, as I dislike the idea of that tight coupling with government. Facebook quickly becomes a tool for coercion, propaganda, and oppression.
There needs to be a new set of rules built around enforcing competition around the data economy. The real risk is that a couple small players completely shut the door to new competition (which leads to more improper use of data as a few players have all of it). Regulators need to get smarter about blocking mergers (like FB and WhatsApp). New rules, like enforcing data sharing, need to be explored (although this reveals a big risk for data privacy).
[1]: https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21721634-how-it-shap...
> There needs to be a new set of rules built around enforcing competition around the data economy.
Agreed. In the US, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the last major attempt at FCC rework. Our world looks nothing like 1996.
My emphasis would be on a more utilized regulatory authority over two methods of entrenchment: (1) data & (2) cloud infrastructure.
Service providers past a certain market share should be limited in how they're able to wield these against competition. If they choose to utilize either for their own, non-neutral services, they should be required to offer them to external parties under reasonable terms that allow for existential-caliber competition.
I realize we failed at this with carriers, but I don't see how the alternative is anything other than a mono-, duo-, or tri-opoly that's able to simply buy any threat to its revenue before the company is able to scale.
Agreed. In the US, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the last major attempt at FCC rework. Our world looks nothing like 1996.
My emphasis would be on a more utilized regulatory authority over two methods of entrenchment: (1) data & (2) cloud infrastructure.
Service providers past a certain market share should be limited in how they're able to wield these against competition. If they choose to utilize either for their own, non-neutral services, they should be required to offer them to external parties under reasonable terms that allow for existential-caliber competition.
I realize we failed at this with carriers, but I don't see how the alternative is anything other than a mono-, duo-, or tri-opoly that's able to simply buy any threat to its revenue before the company is able to scale.
>A break-up would be highly disruptive and slow down innovation.
Innovation is not a panacea, especially when it's primary goal is to sell you advertising.
Innovation is not a panacea, especially when it's primary goal is to sell you advertising.
> Facebook quickly becomes a tool for coercion, propaganda, and oppression.
Isn't that pretty much what Facebook always has been?
Isn't that pretty much what Facebook always has been?
There's nothing more on this earth that Google would want than to split up Facebook. Essentially destroying its biggest digital advertising competition.
I don't trust Facebook or Google...but I also don't trust the government to regulate them (in the regard to the topic of this piece); or for government to be unduly influenced by either company's competitors trying to stifle the companies, or the possibility of limiting speech. There are so many things that can go wrong in getting government involved in this aspect.
I don't trust Facebook or Google...but I also don't trust the government to regulate them (in the regard to the topic of this piece); or for government to be unduly influenced by either company's competitors trying to stifle the companies, or the possibility of limiting speech. There are so many things that can go wrong in getting government involved in this aspect.
[deleted]
Why does it need to be regulated? What ever happened to 'don't believe everything you read' and 'do your research'? No one has ever said Facebook holds anything remotely truthful, it's a social network. Your friends are not 100% honest or accurate. Same goes for Twitter, Reddit, Quora,...etc... It's always been a YMMV scenario, but for entertainment.
What happened is that in a quest for more use and engagement sites and networks tuned their feed generation algorigthms to things that you’re more likely to like which isn’t stuff that goes against your world view/current conception of things. And there’s plenty of people out there more than happy to spin out tons of content for every niche so if you’re just looking and not critical of what sources you’re finding there’s a supporting source out there for every BS facebook/reddit/twitter post.
The problem is that people trust their friends on facebook. How do you protect the people who can't use critical thinking to get answers?
Using your reasoning, you might ask why it's bad to let vulnerable elderly individuals be hoodwinked out of their savings. What happened to their responsibility?
It seems to me that the people as a body are incapable of managing themselves and so they need safeguards. (Wow, that makes me sound like a dictator.)
Using your reasoning, you might ask why it's bad to let vulnerable elderly individuals be hoodwinked out of their savings. What happened to their responsibility?
It seems to me that the people as a body are incapable of managing themselves and so they need safeguards. (Wow, that makes me sound like a dictator.)
> Using your reasoning, you might ask why it's bad to let vulnerable elderly individuals be hoodwinked out of their savings. What happened to their responsibility?
It's a bit different because in your case, we're actively reducing harm. You can't just say "censorship will fix it" or "oversight will fix it" unless we're talking about specific scenarios. Which is why, in general censorship and oversight doesn't really fix anything.
This is also why laws are very detailed and specific. It would be nice to say "be good to one another" and be done with it.
It's a bit different because in your case, we're actively reducing harm. You can't just say "censorship will fix it" or "oversight will fix it" unless we're talking about specific scenarios. Which is why, in general censorship and oversight doesn't really fix anything.
This is also why laws are very detailed and specific. It would be nice to say "be good to one another" and be done with it.
I agree. It would take a very specific set of interventions.
What could do good? A disclaimer every time you log in saying "Pro tip: get your news from reliable sources, not your facebook feed."? Are there any ways people could be prompted to do the right thing?
The question is then: what can be done? Just because it's hard to know how to handle the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't try to.
What could do good? A disclaimer every time you log in saying "Pro tip: get your news from reliable sources, not your facebook feed."? Are there any ways people could be prompted to do the right thing?
The question is then: what can be done? Just because it's hard to know how to handle the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't try to.
>The problem is that people trust their friends on facebook.
Do they? I don't, most of my friends are idiots (and still my best friends) Isn't that their fault however? The government cannot tell you to trust or distrust your friends.
> How do you protect the people who can't use critical thinking to get answers?
It's a scary world when you want the government to tell you what you are allowed to read and believe.
Do they? I don't, most of my friends are idiots (and still my best friends) Isn't that their fault however? The government cannot tell you to trust or distrust your friends.
> How do you protect the people who can't use critical thinking to get answers?
It's a scary world when you want the government to tell you what you are allowed to read and believe.
1. You're not the problem. (And I wasn't either until I stopped using it years ago.) But many of the rest of people who use facebook are. And that's what makes manipulating them through faux grassroots methods so effective.
2. I didn't say I wanted the government to tell me or other people what they were allowed to read and believe. I'm saying I somehow want something to be done to help people realize that they can't trust everything they read online for unverified sources.
You're right that the government can't tell us whether to trust or distrust our friends. But can people be taught to think for themselves?
Maybe a better option is adding training to the curriculum specifically designed to teach students how to classify sources by bias and by probable authenticity.
2. I didn't say I wanted the government to tell me or other people what they were allowed to read and believe. I'm saying I somehow want something to be done to help people realize that they can't trust everything they read online for unverified sources.
You're right that the government can't tell us whether to trust or distrust our friends. But can people be taught to think for themselves?
Maybe a better option is adding training to the curriculum specifically designed to teach students how to classify sources by bias and by probable authenticity.
[deleted]
That assumes people have the ability for critical thought, which is usually developed in school. Schools in the US have not been doing well due to lack of funding, so it makes sense that the populace at large is a bunch of idiots.
> Schools in the US have not been doing well due to lack of funding
Lack of funding isn't the cause.
Schools in the US receive more funding per pupil than schools in the EU or top performing Asian countries. More directly, the US spends more than Canada and gets far worse results. It's difficult to find the root of problem, but I would blame religiosity and widespread violent crime. Young earth creationists are still doing their best to hamstring the sciences no amount of money spent on a child can make up for a father who is dead or imprisoned.
Lack of funding isn't the cause.
Schools in the US receive more funding per pupil than schools in the EU or top performing Asian countries. More directly, the US spends more than Canada and gets far worse results. It's difficult to find the root of problem, but I would blame religiosity and widespread violent crime. Young earth creationists are still doing their best to hamstring the sciences no amount of money spent on a child can make up for a father who is dead or imprisoned.
Your reply started out good then sort of went off the rails. Care to cite supporting data that shows where "religiosity" and Young earth creationists are having a material impact on the overall US education system in the 21st century?
As of 2014, well within the 21st century, 73% of Americans believe that God intervened in designing humans. 31% believe that evolution occurred but God guided the process, 42% of Americans believe that God created humans directly in their present form and only 19% believe that humans evolved without divine participation in the process.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-...
How could the educational system possibly be unaffected by most of the country still denying a foundational part of modern science?
Upon further investigation, we can see that it's not unaffected. Pitched battles are still being waged on intellectual ground settled generations ago in nearly every other developed country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_publ...
http://news.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-...
How could the educational system possibly be unaffected by most of the country still denying a foundational part of modern science?
Upon further investigation, we can see that it's not unaffected. Pitched battles are still being waged on intellectual ground settled generations ago in nearly every other developed country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_publ...
You seem to be the one that is confused. A belief that human evolution occurred with no divine participation is not a foundational part of modern science. Neither 'God designing humans' nor 'God guiding evolution' are supported nor refuted by science because there is no evidence for or against either one. People like yourself often seem to misinterpret "there is no evidence for X" to mean "there is evidence that X does not exist" and that is not the case.
The reality is that only one of the above opinions, "God created humans directly in their present form" is provable/disprovable in any way and therefore the only one which science has anything to say about.
That said, 42% is still an admittedly high number. But you are the one who fails to understand a foundational part of modern science when you assume that correlation equals causation, and that increased religiosity results in poorer education while failing to realize that both are correlated with increased levels of poverty, which seems far more likely to cause poor education than religion.
The reality is that only one of the above opinions, "God created humans directly in their present form" is provable/disprovable in any way and therefore the only one which science has anything to say about.
That said, 42% is still an admittedly high number. But you are the one who fails to understand a foundational part of modern science when you assume that correlation equals causation, and that increased religiosity results in poorer education while failing to realize that both are correlated with increased levels of poverty, which seems far more likely to cause poor education than religion.
Belief in God and being a Young Earth Creationist are not the same thing, not at all. I know this may be hard for the oh-so-enlightened atheist tech crowd to believe, but many people can hold religious convictions and also have intelligent and scientific minds.
[deleted]
And Europe and Asia aren't similarly affected?
It's nice to know that HN is still as condescending as ever. Making an argument that relies on the premise that everyone else is stupid says less about people and more about how you think of others.
Yeah its always been the YMMV scenario - even when it was only the old coders on the web.
With everyone on the web, it turns out that now large meta processes - like elections, are being affected.
At this point, things are no longer the same, and new meta systems are required.
The world changed, and the internet is no longer just for us.
With everyone on the web, it turns out that now large meta processes - like elections, are being affected.
At this point, things are no longer the same, and new meta systems are required.
The world changed, and the internet is no longer just for us.
Looks like people aren't smart enough to do this on their own (sadly). Either they need education (difficult, expensive and some people don't want to be "educated") or just regulate what they see and read.
It's a scary world when you want the government to tell you what you are allowed to read and believe.
I could easily write a headline such as, "We can't trust the New York Times to regulate itself," and be just as misguided as the headline above, for the same reasons.
I think this is a bad analogy.. The NYT is a left leaning paper, but people who have some intellectual honesty already know this..
Even if the Times went completely far far far left, they aren't the only game in town. I can choose to read any of a number of other papers, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist etc..
What alternative is there fire FB?? Mastodon.. Hubzilla..? They're great, if someone has the capability to run the service. I'd argue that most users can't be bothered to learn more than a chromebook let alone understand how to run their own server.
When you have a monopoly like this, it either needs government regulation, ( which is generally bad because it tends to hurt other similar companies), or break them up, i think this is the ideal option, but i don't know in this case.. Break it up by forcing all their code to open source, of perhaps force them to run it more federated or diaspora like and mandating interoperability with these other services..
I'm not sure what the answer is. Of course the real answer is nobody has to use Facebook.. But for a lot of people, that's not an option they're interested in, and since fb literally have all the data, it likely needs regulation which i find very distasteful and terrifying.
Even if the Times went completely far far far left, they aren't the only game in town. I can choose to read any of a number of other papers, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist etc..
What alternative is there fire FB?? Mastodon.. Hubzilla..? They're great, if someone has the capability to run the service. I'd argue that most users can't be bothered to learn more than a chromebook let alone understand how to run their own server.
When you have a monopoly like this, it either needs government regulation, ( which is generally bad because it tends to hurt other similar companies), or break them up, i think this is the ideal option, but i don't know in this case.. Break it up by forcing all their code to open source, of perhaps force them to run it more federated or diaspora like and mandating interoperability with these other services..
I'm not sure what the answer is. Of course the real answer is nobody has to use Facebook.. But for a lot of people, that's not an option they're interested in, and since fb literally have all the data, it likely needs regulation which i find very distasteful and terrifying.
Why do we need to break up FB? That makes no sense to me. In previous antitrust cases, there was always the economic argument (to help out up-and-coming competitors or to prevent price gouging). But Snapchat clearly showed that new players can compete.
Are we breaking them up because they have "too much information"? What does that even mean? A move like that would be beyond unprecedented.
Are we breaking them up because they have "too much information"? What does that even mean? A move like that would be beyond unprecedented.
The point for government to breakup anything is to prevent monopoly.
NYTimes is far from a monopoly - there are tons of news site with more traffic. But there's no competitor that comes close to Facebook
NYTimes is far from a monopoly - there are tons of news site with more traffic. But there's no competitor that comes close to Facebook
And the purpose of preventing a monopoly is, yet again, generally an economic one: to prevent price gouging or help out smaller competitors. Neither of those applies to FB.
It could be a monopoly on ideology too. There's a precedent for this. Back in the early days of broadcasting, NBC was broken up into NBC + ABC for having too much control of public discourse
This is simply not true. It was an economic argument[1]. Newer & smaller radio stations could not compete. And if anyone should be broken up for monopolizing online ad revenue, it should probably be Google (Alphabet).
[1] http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
[1] http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
> since fb literally have all the data, it likely needs regulation which i find very distasteful and terrifying.
Why? Do you find it terrifying that your doctor, hospital, and health insurance company have very strict regulations on keeping your health data private? I, frankly, find it distasteful and terrifying that they have essentially no regulations on the data and can do whatever they want with it. I mean look at what happened at Equifax for example.
Why? Do you find it terrifying that your doctor, hospital, and health insurance company have very strict regulations on keeping your health data private? I, frankly, find it distasteful and terrifying that they have essentially no regulations on the data and can do whatever they want with it. I mean look at what happened at Equifax for example.
Er... nice way of shooting down your own argument. Equifax has a ton of regulation already, it didn't seem to help any.
Actually, I think you've just shot down your own argument. Please explain why you feel that existing regulation of Equifax "didn't seem to help any". That is a truly laughable assertion.
Early in their history, credit agencies collected very private personal information about people for inclusion in their credit files. The information in peoples' credit files was frequently inaccurate, and consumers had no way of correcting that information, and no way of even knowing what was in their credit file.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act [1] limits the information that credit agencies can keep on people, mandates that people be allowed to access what is in their file, mandates that people be able to correct inaccurate information, and restrains how third parties can access the information.
In fact, that all sounds like a great start to regulation for social networks and other internet giants!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
Early in their history, credit agencies collected very private personal information about people for inclusion in their credit files. The information in peoples' credit files was frequently inaccurate, and consumers had no way of correcting that information, and no way of even knowing what was in their credit file.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act [1] limits the information that credit agencies can keep on people, mandates that people be allowed to access what is in their file, mandates that people be able to correct inaccurate information, and restrains how third parties can access the information.
In fact, that all sounds like a great start to regulation for social networks and other internet giants!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
It might be true that the NYT can't be trusted to regulate itself for the same reasons raised in the article - primarily that it has no incentive to do so, and lots of incentives not to. That said, I care a lot more about Facebook being properly regulated than I do about the NYT, simply because of the amount and scope of data that Facebook has.
He's right. NYT flips from a reasonable centrist publication to a war monger at the first hint of fighting. How many bodies do they have on them from lending legitimacy to Afghanistan and Iraq let alone Vietnam?
What are those reasons? Genuinely curious what you disagree with.
Regulation is a form of consumer protection that provides where corporate policies fail. The data the FB owns is vastly more rich and personally identifiable than what NYT owns on its users. Hard to accept a comparison to NYT.
And I could retort; can you file a defamation suit towards Facebook for something their users did? Can you file a defamation suit against NYTIMES for something their reporters did?
Hacker News is just as ideological as the NYT.
Actually both journalists and media are regulated.
Perhaps you should address specifics of why regulation is not required in this case, rather than attack the messenger?
By what regulations? They are allowed to publish pretty much anything other than libel.
Yeah, and the US definition of libel is incredibly narrow, especially for public figures. Basically, unless you can prove they intentionally lied, forget it. As the Rolling Stone demonstrated, they can go into a story with a pre-existing bias against the subject, skip normal journalistic checks, conceal from readers just how weak the story is and how much it relies on a single source, and say something false and damaging, and that's still not enough; the only thing they could be got on was the odd technicality of counting adding a note to the story after they knew it was wrong as republishing it.
I worked at FB during the same time, and while I admire Sandy's sentiment in principle, this article is conflating what 3rd party Developers were doing with user data.... not FB.
In fact, Zynga, and many other social gaming Developers, practically went out of business as FB started to enforce data usage policies.
In fact, Zynga, and many other social gaming Developers, practically went out of business as FB started to enforce data usage policies.
But Facebook was allowing 3rd party developers access to a lot of data. I've even seen my profile on a 3rd party site where the developer said "Facebook granted me access.".
It's like the NSA saying "We collect your information, but we have laws to prevent their abuse.". First you have to be caught, and then they'll punish you. There are no technical limitations. This is like someone like Equifax saying "Here's our database server credentials, but connecting to it or querying is illegal.".
It's like the NSA saying "We collect your information, but we have laws to prevent their abuse.". First you have to be caught, and then they'll punish you. There are no technical limitations. This is like someone like Equifax saying "Here's our database server credentials, but connecting to it or querying is illegal.".
Review the app perms before opt-in. "This app is requesting access to Full Name, Email, Friends, etc..."
FB trusted Developers to do the right thing with that data through T&Cs.
FB trusted Developers to do the right thing with that data through T&Cs.
So Facebook allowed some of their developers to run roughshod with users’ data while practically driving others out of business for doing the same? What differentiated the survivors?
It's ridiculous to think that regulation is any sort of solution. It's even more ridiculous for somebody to suggest that in 2017 when we have such shining examples of altruistic heads of regulatory agencies. (Ajit Pai, Scott Pruitt, etc.)
Someone is always going to be thinking about the bottom line, but come on now. Facebook isn't the only internet business that the russians used to influence people. Have you looked at reddit over the last 3 years? Any and every site with influence is going to get gamed by every government who has the bandwidth to play ball. You can't regulate your way around that. Look at how the Trump administration is currently using Twitter. Is that proper? no, but it's great for Twitter. Should they refuse to service him?
Governments shouldn't be looked to for solutions. Government is TERRIBLE at solving any problems. If change is required or desired, you go about making change happen the good old fashioned way - by getting others to agree with you.
Someone is always going to be thinking about the bottom line, but come on now. Facebook isn't the only internet business that the russians used to influence people. Have you looked at reddit over the last 3 years? Any and every site with influence is going to get gamed by every government who has the bandwidth to play ball. You can't regulate your way around that. Look at how the Trump administration is currently using Twitter. Is that proper? no, but it's great for Twitter. Should they refuse to service him?
Governments shouldn't be looked to for solutions. Government is TERRIBLE at solving any problems. If change is required or desired, you go about making change happen the good old fashioned way - by getting others to agree with you.
> It's even more ridiculous for somebody to suggest that in 2017 when we have such shining examples of altruistic heads of regulatory agencies. (Ajit Pai, Scott Pruitt, etc.)
The recent "regulate Facebook" furor (as seen near-daily at the NYT) seems to feed into a larger pattern of this. There are a lot of establishment-friendly, technocratic people who don't seem to have adjusted their worldviews to accommodate the last ~18 months.
These are people who argued over the last eight years that we need the trustworthy, knowledgeable parts of government (roughly defined as "executive branch bureaucracies") to rein in the excesses of productive-yet-reckless businesses.
And then Trump became president and appointed a string of regulatory heads who support entrenched businesses and oppose the existence of their own departments. And seemingly, no one noticed. Whether or not Tom Wheeler and Michelle Lee were qualified to regulate the tech sector, Ajit Pai and Andrei Iancu aren't.
My opinions on regulation are not strictly libertarian. But I'm absolutely baffled by watching left-leaning voices work their hardest to empower grossly incompetent regulators who disagree with all of their goals.
The recent "regulate Facebook" furor (as seen near-daily at the NYT) seems to feed into a larger pattern of this. There are a lot of establishment-friendly, technocratic people who don't seem to have adjusted their worldviews to accommodate the last ~18 months.
These are people who argued over the last eight years that we need the trustworthy, knowledgeable parts of government (roughly defined as "executive branch bureaucracies") to rein in the excesses of productive-yet-reckless businesses.
And then Trump became president and appointed a string of regulatory heads who support entrenched businesses and oppose the existence of their own departments. And seemingly, no one noticed. Whether or not Tom Wheeler and Michelle Lee were qualified to regulate the tech sector, Ajit Pai and Andrei Iancu aren't.
My opinions on regulation are not strictly libertarian. But I'm absolutely baffled by watching left-leaning voices work their hardest to empower grossly incompetent regulators who disagree with all of their goals.
You can't force Facebook to be decentralized. Quit using it, and use real decentralized social networks. The point about trust is correct though. One surely should not trust Facebook.
Linked in is way more brutal than Facebook. I(and all my friends)can take fb or leave it, put any kind of random info / pictures. LinkedIn though.. I am stuck!
LinkedIn is less of a monopoly.
What do you use LinkedIn for?
This reminds me of a recent TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dy...
Am I the only one who noticed a big flow of hit pieces on Facebook from papers like NYT and Guardian lately?
The thing is, I actually agree with the overall message, and that's why such a change of heart from the media is so noticeable - I've been talking about this for years, and I never saw opinions like that in the MSM. But now it seems like there's an article like that every week on the HN front page.
What happened?
The thing is, I actually agree with the overall message, and that's why such a change of heart from the media is so noticeable - I've been talking about this for years, and I never saw opinions like that in the MSM. But now it seems like there's an article like that every week on the HN front page.
What happened?
Concern over Facebook being a powerful tool used to influence elections.
For splitting Facebook into face babies, look at p&l lines, geographic lines, what could become api boundaries,different apps, and different apps within fb wall.
So one and more of
WhatsApp vs Instagram vs fb vs messenger
FB video vs FB ads vs fb news
FB EU vs US vs India vs...
FB identity vs fb communication vs fb ads
There was no precursor to regulating standard oil in the last century, and no precursor to regulating Google, FB, Amazon, this century.
Doesn't mean it's not warranted.
So one and more of
WhatsApp vs Instagram vs fb vs messenger
FB video vs FB ads vs fb news
FB EU vs US vs India vs...
FB identity vs fb communication vs fb ads
There was no precursor to regulating standard oil in the last century, and no precursor to regulating Google, FB, Amazon, this century.
Doesn't mean it's not warranted.
The issue I see with adding gov level regulation to Facebook (or any other media) is it very quickly becomes a tool for oppressive regimes.
If Facebook builds in the tools so governments can control exactly what is posted on them then expect every single nation in the world to require access to these tools overnight.
Even nations we might think of as being very condition of the right of their citizens have content they deem illegal and would if they could be required by their own laws to compel Facebook to let them control this.
This, in the end, would not just be about public content but also about all private content, messages sent over FB messenger etc.
Do we want a popover to show up next time we share a hypothetical "dick pick" with a 'lover' saying 'awaiting review from your local authorities'? God forbid you are on holiday/changing planes in a religious extream region of the world and find yourself carted off to jail for 10 years for this.
If Facebook builds in the tools so governments can control exactly what is posted on them then expect every single nation in the world to require access to these tools overnight.
Even nations we might think of as being very condition of the right of their citizens have content they deem illegal and would if they could be required by their own laws to compel Facebook to let them control this.
This, in the end, would not just be about public content but also about all private content, messages sent over FB messenger etc.
Do we want a popover to show up next time we share a hypothetical "dick pick" with a 'lover' saying 'awaiting review from your local authorities'? God forbid you are on holiday/changing planes in a religious extream region of the world and find yourself carted off to jail for 10 years for this.
There's nothing stopping governments doing this already. Facebook operates financially within their jurisdiction the minute ad transactions with companies and citizens registerd in that territory happen. Governments can cut this off, and it would behove FB to get in front of this.
The headline is probably right, but we can't trust the government to regulate it either and markets seem to be broken so there really aren't good options here.
My worry is MANY Facebook employees having access to key profile data and not all their data logs can be downloaded.
For example, I know that a current employee accessed data on profiles I had viewed and shared it with another friend. Unclear how they secure PII and how such abuse can be reported.
For example, I know that a current employee accessed data on profiles I had viewed and shared it with another friend. Unclear how they secure PII and how such abuse can be reported.
Other people could make competitors, and more importantly, people who are using Facebook could switch. It happened to MySpace. Makes a lot more sense to me than turning it into a public utility or breaking it up anyway.
Just stop using it, it really isn't that important.
Just stop using it, it really isn't that important.
Facebook learned the lesson of MySpace; buy any competitor that looks like it's gaining traction. Facebook has the resources to engage in this strategy. It's going to be a lot harder to disrupt Facebook as a company than it was to disrupt MySpace. I'm not claiming this is a reason to regulate Facebook. Just that saying MySpace was disrupted is not a reason to not regulate Facebook.
Facebook won't be able to buy up a distributed open-source p2p alternative.
A p2p alternative isn't likely to be able to compete due to the massive income generated by Facebook's advertising platform.
Not necessarily. For instance, Facebook still can't get rid of email.
actually, that's the point of p2p: it doesn't cost developers anything. I don't have to "win" at market share to make it either, just enough mass to develop a self-sustaining community of users and developers. I don't have to make a ton of money for it to be worth it either. my infrastructure costs are effectively zero, so I'm really paying for my time. I can use liberapay and crypto to take donations/tips, I can sell my expertise in p2p as a contractor, &c.
the most important point is that I can keep going indefinitely as long as I don't get bored, because you can't outspend me if it doesn't cost me anything to keep going.
the most important point is that I can keep going indefinitely as long as I don't get bored, because you can't outspend me if it doesn't cost me anything to keep going.
> a distributed open-source p2p alternative
Like talking to people, in real life: face to face?
They're making a dent in that.
Like talking to people, in real life: face to face?
They're making a dent in that.
I suspect that state actors won’t allow such a system to reach critical mass.
Facebook has sufficient accumulation of capital to make this impossible. Build something good enough to challenge them and you will get purchased.
Facebook does not have the power to force people to sell to them. They do not have the power to force people to use Facebook. That's a fact. It's a free website, that people use of their own accord, at their own discretion. Just like someone that chooses to read NYT.
The call to regulate a free press (Facebook) is far more disturbing than any targeted advertising Facebook is engaged in.
The call to regulate a free press (Facebook) is far more disturbing than any targeted advertising Facebook is engaged in.
FB’s power is not a binary of either “can force” or “can’t force.” But they can offer an amount so high it’s hard to say no, and they can manipulate their users’ attention in ever more complex and subtle ways.
I don’t consider FB a pure evil, just a potential danger. Their moral hazard is comparable to that of a heroin dealer—-they are incentivized to get you using the product as much as possible, regardless of the possibility that more than a small amount could be harmful.
I don’t consider FB a pure evil, just a potential danger. Their moral hazard is comparable to that of a heroin dealer—-they are incentivized to get you using the product as much as possible, regardless of the possibility that more than a small amount could be harmful.
Offering an extremely high price that surpasses the sellers expectations + potential buyers remorse and making a sale "hard to say no to" is not force. It is not Don Corleone making an offer they cannot refuse. Let's not equate voluntary exchange with a mugging
I agree, it’s not force. I just don’t think “force” in the literal sense is required to make it a scary situation.
So don't say yes when they offer to purchase you
Of course you can't trust anyone to judge himself fairly. That's the definition of conflict of interest. I suppose USA has a soft spot for Facebook because the company it's one of their champions.
It's a farce. It reminds me of church pedophilia in Poland. Various transgressions commited by priests are left for the Church to handle with its internal procedures. Which is usually just sweeping under the carpet, like moving a pedo priest to a different region. The faithful do their part - denial, and ostracism for people who criticize Church too loud.
It's a farce. It reminds me of church pedophilia in Poland. Various transgressions commited by priests are left for the Church to handle with its internal procedures. Which is usually just sweeping under the carpet, like moving a pedo priest to a different region. The faithful do their part - denial, and ostracism for people who criticize Church too loud.
We need to regulate private data amassed by internet giants the same way we regulate data gathered by credit reporting agencies.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act [1]:
- regulates what data credit agencies can store,
- mandates that people be able to access data about themselves,
- mandates that third parties cannot access a person's data without the person's consent every single time,
- mandates that people must be able to correct false information in their credit file,
- mandates that people be able to place a "freeze" on uses of their credit data
Each of these things translates quite nicely to private data that internet giants gather on us.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
The Fair Credit Reporting Act [1]:
- regulates what data credit agencies can store,
- mandates that people be able to access data about themselves,
- mandates that third parties cannot access a person's data without the person's consent every single time,
- mandates that people must be able to correct false information in their credit file,
- mandates that people be able to place a "freeze" on uses of their credit data
Each of these things translates quite nicely to private data that internet giants gather on us.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
I would take this a step further and say we can't trust anyone to regulate anything.
If it's not measurable and automateable, you can't trust it.
If it's not measurable and automateable, you can't trust it.
Splitting Facebook into Face and Book will change nothing. Face will sell you out or Book will sell you out. Your choice. Instead, Facebook needs to be forced by regulators to become SafeBook. Zuckerberg will whine like a stuck pig. So be it.
Facebook is an evil company that exists only to profit from harming society.
Why not take over the domain name, dismantle the company and put its board on prison?
That would make sense.
Why not take over the domain name, dismantle the company and put its board on prison?
That would make sense.
And again, the big lie about Russia continues to propagate. It really is embarrassing.
Can we trust the New York Times to regulate itself either?
I find this to be a legitimate question. At least in my country all news outlets have a political bias one way or another, including those run by the government itself.
Is there something about NY times (I don't read it) that warrants a downvote on OP's comment?
Is there something about NY times (I don't read it) that warrants a downvote on OP's comment?
Yes, the simple fact that it's not a de-facto monopoly with network effects.
rdxm(1)
Maybe FB does need regulation... I don't trust FB to do it. Obviously.
I trust the government even less.
There's got to be a better solution.
I trust the government even less.
There's got to be a better solution.
But the thing I would want more regulation on is their possession of personal data and the tools to target people using that data. The same applies to all similar advertising-first platforms.
If all of this data and the tools to analyze it are as powerful as the data giants seem to suggest by their marketing and actions (given the increase in collection, storage, and analysis)... Then maybe we, as a society, need to have a conversation about that. And possibly regulation of some kind is an outcome of that conversation.