When company is young it breaks rules, hate rules. When it becomes big it wants more and more regulations. It builds a regulatory fence around it, entry barrier becomes harder and we get capitalism borne leech that swallows all potential progress. Not just that this proposal sounds like it will do two things. First hurt anonymity. Second, give governments first seats to censorship. Not they can't do that already but none every video, post will be under scrutiny from get go not when it's viral. Very much like YouTube dmca system implemented by Google.
Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
211–220 of 266 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#212The four points being: * harmful content * election integrity * privacy * data portability I think Zuckerberg's intent is to dilute the real issue (privacy) with these other three points. FB has a bad record when it comes to privacy and they are actively taking measures against it. For example, they lobby against privacy laws [1]. They create shadow profiles and they make it difficult or impossible to delete your acc…
I think HN in particular is too focused on "loss of privacy" as an issue. It seems to me that loss of privacy, while concerning, hasn't caused a fraction of the tangible, measurable problems in the west that misinformation and echo chambers have caused. Loss of privacy hasn't caused anti-immigrant fear-mongering, or conspiracy theorists harassing school shooting victims, or people not vaccinating their children. In a…
The loss of privacy is needed for the microtargeting used in misinformation campaigns. It is exactly FBs profiles that allowed targeted ads for fear mongering, conspiracy theories, perhaps even school shooting victims.
Similarly, Google's profiles help push people to 'engaging' content on YouTube. It just so happens that extreme claims (anorexia is good, x was a conspiracy, group y is inferior) happen to be very engaging.
Our loss of privacy has a lot of responsibility here. It has allowed for a very subtle division of the public forum.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#213Always do the opposite of what Zuckerberg says.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sol…
"...indiscriminately selling user data..." That has never been Facebook's business model. The Hacker News crowd is smart enough to discuss these sorts of topics without dumbing down and misrepresenting the facts. Facebook indiscriminately sells ads. In the past they also indiscriminately gave third parties access to user data. Doing that let them grow their market share and helped their primary business, but is not h…
They don't even indiscriminately sell ads. Making that claim is dumbing down the topic.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sol…
As Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
> regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass.
Like gdpr on steroids? I think this would ruin a lot of companies and make a lot of really interesting and useful services no longer possible... but I'm rather curious what it would really mean. I've never seen it proposed by someone who actually recognized what it would mean, though.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sol…
I see him as among a group of people who believe that financial success gives them both the credibility and authority to dictate the rules of society. It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
Are you joking? Isn't this entire post saying that he believes that he and his company shouldn't be the ones making these rules? That they should be done via a mix of regulation and trusted third parties?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#217"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...
I agree with Mark as far as social networks are concerned. The 'social' part of the name is important, and social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake. Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.
>Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.
No, it doesn't. People are perfectly willing to troll under their real name. When Youtube forced people's G+ accounts to merge into their comments and people suddenly found themselves commenting under their real names, it stopped the trolling and hate... for like a week.
Hell, plenty of people on Usenet were assholes with their real names and emails in their signatures.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#218The 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…
> Also note the timing. This op-ed comes literally one day after Facebook made headlines for "mistakenly deleting" a bunch of Zuckerberg's early posts
Under what circumstances is a company evil for not allowing a user to delete posts? and under what circumstances are they evil for the reverse?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
As Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
> Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.
Cambridge Analytica is ironically totally not a refutation - it was never bought or stolen but abused their shoddy permissions. Against security illiterate users they could get the same thing with just 'login through this for a chance to win a free iPad'.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see him as among a group of people who believe that financial success gives them both the credibility and authority to dictate the rules of society. It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
Are you joking? Isn't this entire post saying that he believes that he and his company shouldn't be the ones making these rules? That they should be done via a mix of regulation and trusted third parties?
But he is still the one trying to dictate the rules given his position and authority - that they should go with his daft idea in the first place.