71–80 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, I wish governments would ban something like diamonds in wedding rings instead. Like Facebook, we don't need diamonds to survive. Diamonds have been a the cause of much conflict in Africa.
I wish governments would ban weddings. We don’t need weddings to survive and they cause so many conflicts around the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zuckerberg's talking point from his AP photographed note sheet ( https://i.imgur.com/3UP1b4X.jpg ) is a good one. If you break up the major US tech platforms, it cedes leadership of those sectors to Chinese competitors. Something to think about in discussions about breaking up Facebook, Amazon, and Google.
So they're "too big to fail"? If you break of the platforms into smaller separate companies, why would that cede leadership to Chinese companies?
> why would that cede leadership to Chinese companies?
It cedes leadership because the Chinese companies, modeled after the un-splintered US platforms, have more resources, capability to undertake coordinated action, and can take advantage of greater network effects.
Broken up into what exactly? If you don't like Facebook don't use it. How about the Senate and the internet outrage machine spend time on companies like Equifax instead, who (1) we literally cannot opt out of, (2) have private data that we didn't choose to share with them, and (3) have broken actual laws but haven't received as much as a slap on the wrist for it.
Firstly, it is not possible to opt out of facebook. [1] And they do indeed collect private data that we didn't choose to share (shadow accounts, third party website trackers, etc). Facebook have broken "actual laws". There are so many cases were facebook have broken the law. [2] [3] Also, please read up on Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as"). [1] https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.htm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be a better way to deal with monopolies? Surely the breakup of Bell is better than if they were allowed to continue as a monopoly right?
Not at all, actually! Ever heard of Verizon, AT&T, and Centurylink? All of them came from the Bell breakup. Bell used to do things that were cool as fuck ; post-breakup, prices rose for everyone, and innovation stopped really happening. Monopolies aren't inherently bad - especially not ones like Bell, where they're beneficial to everyone.
That is an interesting thought. What other examples are there for monopolies being inherently good for everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, it is not possible to opt out of facebook. [1] And they do indeed collect private data that we didn't choose to share (shadow accounts, third party website trackers, etc). Facebook have broken "actual laws". There are so many cases were facebook have broken the law. [2] [3] Also, please read up on Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as"). [1] https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.htm…
Regarding [1], it is possible to opt out of facebook: don't visit websites with Facebook like/share buttons. (This website, for example). When you access a website with facebook tracking installed, you are consenting to being tracked.
they should have never been allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram in the first place.
Um, neither WhatsApp nor Instagram were competitors to Facebook. Both of the acquired companies simply did something that Facebook tried to do, but very successfully. The government can only prevent acquisitions and mergers, when such would greatly harm the consumer by giving a company too much control of a vital market, like health insurance or phone service. Moreover, it didn't stop banks from consolidating 30 sepa…
On top of that, there was very move of youngsters to WhatsApp and Instagram as their social media of choice. Instead of lame old man's Facebook. That's very clear competition for new users.
they should have never been allowed to buy Whatsapp and Instagram in the first place.
Would you argue that Google should have been allowed to buy them then? How about Google buying YouTube? Where do you draw the line? Because so far it seems to largely stem on whether the people proposing this like the company or if they think (wrongly) it swayed the election outcome away from their perceived world view.
YT with today's reach: no buyout from Google. Simple as that
A good first step would be to force Facebook to let users easily take out their data in machine-readable form, including their social graph, posts and media.
They have done that voluntarily for years. It's under your settings. One thing they don't currently allow is a complete and utter, real, deletion of your profile and all of its assets. You can delete your account, but it's more or less just held in a suspended state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, it is not possible to opt out of facebook. [1] And they do indeed collect private data that we didn't choose to share (shadow accounts, third party website trackers, etc). Facebook have broken "actual laws". There are so many cases were facebook have broken the law. [2] [3] Also, please read up on Fallacy of relative privation ("not as bad as"). [1] https://boingboing.net/2017/11/08/involuntary-profiling.htm…
Regarding [1], it is possible to opt out of facebook: don't visit websites with Facebook like/share buttons. (This website, for example). When you access a website with facebook tracking installed, you are consenting to being tracked.
Yet websites try again and again to load the facebook like button.
As per GDPR, which is in effect but not enforced until May, tracking me without explicitly and clearly asking me if that is okay is not allowed and anything else, like withdrawing service until I agree to be tracked, does not construct consent.
When I visit a new website I do not know if they have facebook like buttons. I have to load the page to check that and without a script or ad blocker I will also load the like button and facebook will track that.
At which point in that process did I consent to any and all scripts on that webpage leeching of my personal data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all, actually! Ever heard of Verizon, AT&T, and Centurylink? All of them came from the Bell breakup. Bell used to do things that were cool as fuck ; post-breakup, prices rose for everyone, and innovation stopped really happening. Monopolies aren't inherently bad - especially not ones like Bell, where they're beneficial to everyone.
> Monopolies aren't inherently bad - especially not ones like Bell, where they're beneficial to everyone. That is an interesting thought. What other examples are there for monopolies being inherently good for everyone?
Standard Oil did (minus the environment); under their monopoly prices were incredibly cheap. The person who benefited most from the split was Rockefeller, who you've probably heard of.