131–140 of 266 posts
"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Zuckerberg is just helping the internet to learn and evolve. Without his evil products, we wouldn't understand the psychological harm of the internet. These will clear up in the next 5-10 years.
My bad. I didn’t realize we should be thanking him for making billions off of evil products while teaching us a lesson about psychological harm on the internet. Lesson learned! /s Edit: Sorry for the snark. The idea that Zuckerberg is “helping” us with his lack of integrity is so absurd that I assumed you were trolling. It’s not just absurd but dangerous as the other reply to your comment stated better than I did.
Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.
I don’t think it is. First, lawmakers in several countries around the world were the first to propose these types of regulations, not Facebook. Second, Mark already acknowledged in the senate hearing that such regulations can hurt small businesses, so lawmakers need to be careful. Hard problems require complex solutions. It’s not easy for small companies to get “a foot in the door” in the space or auto industries eit…
He's open to GDPR, but only if the same standards work everywhere, and only if it shuts down everyone who doesn't have Facebook's capabilities to adhere and lobby against laws. Of course, the focus isn't on minimizing data, but rather making sure that data can flow cleanly between the monopolists.
Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.
I don’t think it is. First, lawmakers in several countries around the world were the first to propose these types of regulations, not Facebook. Second, Mark already acknowledged in the senate hearing that such regulations can hurt small businesses, so lawmakers need to be careful. Hard problems require complex solutions. It’s not easy for small companies to get “a foot in the door” in the space or auto industries eit…
As summarized by the BBC, calling for the following things:
* Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content
* All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting
* Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors
* Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods
* New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online
* More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year
* A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country
* Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
The guy who broke every single rule in his ruthless conquest of the internet is now asking for new rules. You have to admire the sheer audacity of this play. It does make sense though. He can finally see the tide of public opinion turning against him. Facebook's business metrics will be fine for a while but the pace at which they are losing people's trust is increasing. He needed to make a grand statement now while t…
Another point to consider is that the more the internet is regulated, the more difficult it is for new entrants to compete , as they have to comply first with existing laws. This is an easy way for incumbents to protect themselves from potentially swift-footed competitors.
Perhaps the regulations could be written to be more onerous for the incumbents to implement?
E.g. a new entrant below a certain size is allowed to get away with a good-faith effort and only subject to small fines, while an incumbent is required to have a massive and empowered internal compliance bureaucracy and is subject to massive fines when non-compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you mean to write 'Facebook gets a lot of flack '? That would seem to make more sense given the rest of the sentence.
i wondered about it too, i imagine it comes from "cut me some slack" = "cut the criticism", hence slack=criticism