131–140 of 487 posts
Live from the testimony, emphasis mine: > MZ: "There will always be a version of Facebook that is free. Coming soon, Facebook Pro(TM)! Literally putting a price on your privacy.
I imagine that will play out like Apps on iOS and Android that you buy the Ad-Free version of only have have Ads show up a year later.
You buy your privacy and they change the ToS sothat you're not.
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
Live from the testimony, emphasis mine: > MZ: "There will always be a version of Facebook that is free. Coming soon, Facebook Pro(TM)! Literally putting a price on your privacy.
I caught that too, can only imagine what the public at large will think of this were it to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular Internet social network, right now , but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly. Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one compan…
>Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. Sure there is; all of the people on FB already. The fact that the software can be replicated is not the only consideration. If, in practice, they have a virtual monopoly due to user lock in then it's a reasonable debate to have. I'm certainly out of my depth on the legal end of this, but your definition is far too simplistic.
But users aren't locked in. They have not paid a yearly fee which still has 11 months left, they don't have to pay a fee to leave, and they don't have to pay a fee to join the other network.
Users can come and go as they please, and there are alternatives they can use, if they choose.
If they don't want to use the other network because their friends aren't on it, that's just their choice, not "lock in".
Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?
> Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. I tend to agree with him. Facebook just happens to be the most popular Internet social network, right now , but there is nothing that makes it a monopoly. Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt, and that's just one compan…
While I don't entirely agree with this line of argument, it's usually argued that there is in fact a very massive cost in attempting to do so and that Facebook has a very large moat with its network effect. It's very difficult to unseat an entrenched & dominant company in any field first of all, second you need large amounts of capital to compete in such a set market. You have to change the minds of practically every adult American and switch them away from a product they already know and are comfortable with (that is also 'free' to use), that's beyond difficult.
Look at how much capital Facebook raised pre IPO, you will need more than that to unseat them; no venture capitalist is going to give you that (which is why nobody is seeding Facebook competitors with billions of dollars, despite the fact that they'll earn $20 billion in profit this year; it's the same reason nobody is seeding Google competitors by the thousands).
> I'm sure for decades the Ford Motor Company was thought of as a Monopoly... and then they went bankrupt
Ford Motor Company has never gone bankrupt. Perhaps you're thinking of GM, which has been dominant in the US over Ford since 1932.
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
It's almost a completely biased question. Objectively: who engages in hate speech? The far right. The far left may be overly accepting of everything, let's say.. they are not the ones engaging in hate speech. So it's no surprise that far right pages would be banned way more often than far left pages.
It's a valid concern.
EDIT: The downvotes kind of illustrate my point for me. There are a lot of people, especially with Twitter pile-on culture, that get lumped in by lefties as being nazis, misogynists, or whatever, and then this gets repeated by others until they're stuck with the label.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still enabled). Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense. But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political.
>But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political. This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates should make everyone's skin crawl.
Ted Cruz clearly showing that he's a partisan hack. Didn't give a crap about users' privacy or the issues at hand, he had to make it about 'liberal Silicon Valley' and 'conservative persecution'. What a joke.
I believe others had been covering privacy pretty well. When it comes to 20k people manually policing content - it is probably good that the group be neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. Sure there is; all of the people on FB already. The fact that the software can be replicated is not the only consideration. If, in practice, they have a virtual monopoly due to user lock in then it's a reasonable debate to have. I'm certainly out of my depth on the legal end of this, but your definition is far too simplistic.
> virtual monopoly due to user lock in But users aren't locked in. They have not paid a yearly fee which still has 11 months left, they don't have to pay a fee to leave, and they don't have to pay a fee to join the other network. Users can come and go as they please, and there are alternatives they can use, if they choose. If they don't want to use the other network because their friends aren't on it, that's just the…
When you're actually dealing with human customers and users, it's nearly impossible to convince them to switch once they're comfortable with a product or service. Those people have to be tremendously inconvenienced to do so, while simultaneously being presented with a great alternative - often it requires a 10x-style superior product that isn't just great, it's a huge leap over what's already available.
Switching costs are immense with Facebook. If you have 100 friends on there, and you're the first to abandon their network and move to a new social network where none of your friends exists - that's a huge cost for the average person. It may or may not be a cost to you, it is an immense cost to most people. That also applies if you attempt to maintain profiles on both networks, it's a time and annoyance/inconvenience cost, people hate such.