91–100 of 203 posts
The great irony here is that people have no issue stealing data -- copyright theft is considered "normal" by many people. However, if it's your data, then maybe jail time should be on the table?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is people and people suck. Facebook is also a scapegoat and to the contrary of what a resentful media industry would like you to believe the sum of their contributions to the world is overwhelmingly positive
Facebook is the tip of the iceberg. For every bad story about Facebook there's at least a dozen about Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Uber, AirBnB, and smaller players. Regulation designed to rein in the heavy hitters will not harm small startups, especially ones whose innovation is built upon careful flouting of law and loophole-seeking, anyway.
They make a token concession or two, heap on the compliance costs and complications, and then enjoy a cosy relationship with the government group in charge of their would-be competitors too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about Facebook, it is about some startup you have never heard of that actually is doing something positive for the world and suddenly finds its business smothered by poorly thought out regulations. Considering that we have powerful congressmen who do not even understand Facebook's business model (and whose staff failed to explain it to them) does not give me confidence in Congress' ability to craft construct…
That's a terrifying possibility. Are there any actual case studies and examples of tech startups being killed by regulation? Or is this a campfire story that is retold whenever the possibility of regulation is mentioned.
Really though, the tech industry has not yet been subject to such significant regulations. The history of the railroad industry is filled with examples of the destructive effects of bad regulations, ultimately leading to a near collapse of the entire industry in the 1960s (a cascade of bankruptcies, especially in the northeast). The Staggers Act saved the freight industry by relaxing rules, but passenger industry remains uneconomical and is basically quasi-state-run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way. Facebook et al are not the source of all evil, they are actually a source of financial relief to most people, they are only a problem to media companies, and those who write books about how bad they are. It's healthcare and housing costs that are the bane of everyday people, this media fabricated tech backlash is a strategic…
> Regulation as the result of "bad stories" yeah let heysteria and sensationalism lead the way. That's literally how muckrakers during the Progressive Era alerted the public to the depredations of big business and forced government regulation of business practices to ensure competition and free enterprise. And how does any social media company provide "financial relief"?
So you're one of those.
Were the "muckrakers" at the time in the same business as the companies they were raking muck at? Cause that sure is the case nowadays.
> And how does any social media company provide "financial relief"?
Zero dollar cost for communication, broadcasting, entertainment, information retrieval, etc while little else is free.
Pitchfork mobs dictating policy, that is why you don't elect an ex state attorney general to the legislative branch: prosecution and grandstanding is all they know. Also the principle concept of "stealing your data" is more ludicrous than "stealing" in the copyright sense; that data is meta data and it's not yours, it was generated by machines you don't own and have no claim over.
I really love the simplicity of this argument. If you generate the metadata, you own it, no questions asked.
Pitchfork mobs dictating policy, that is why you don't elect an ex state attorney general to the legislative branch: prosecution and grandstanding is all they know. Also the principle concept of "stealing your data" is more ludicrous than "stealing" in the copyright sense; that data is meta data and it's not yours, it was generated by machines you don't own and have no claim over.
I really love the simplicity of this argument. If you generate the metadata, you own it, no questions asked.
Is personal information really a kind of property, that can be stolen? If it is, aren’t we doing this all the time, any time we perceive anything about anyone? How is this different than taking a picture of someone? The image is owned by the photographer, not the subject(s) according to current laws. if I meet someone on the street, and record their name, the conversation we had, and the location where I met them, an…
The photographer may own the image, but the subject may also need to sign a release for the photographer to monetize.
> if I meet someone on the street, and record their name, the conversation we had, and the location where I met them, and their phone number, have I “taken their data”?
> Do they have the right to demand that I not record that information?
In some US states, yes. Many states have what is called "two party consent" and you cannot record a conversation with a device unless both parties agree.
> Or is it only if I do this at a scale beyond which humans are not capable, and store it digitally, is that what makes this illegal?
There are many different factors. However, one of the big ones I would put forth is if I don't ever interact with your service and you still have a profile on me.
My friends tag pictures on Facebook. This means that Facebook now has a profile on me that I did NOT consent to. What is MY recourse?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering right now companies like Facebook are very actively making the world a worse place I would say this would be a strong move towards something better.
Facebook is people and people suck. Facebook is also a scapegoat and to the contrary of what a resentful media industry would like you to believe the sum of their contributions to the world is overwhelmingly positive