Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 266 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#221

Post by cjhopman »

reaperducer wrote: post #81
marcrosoft wrote: post #17

The 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…

harmful content, election integrity, privacy, data portability Shut down Facebook as a company and three of those four problems are solved.

It's incredibly naive to believe that nothing similar would fill that void.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#222

Post by Nasrudith »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #20
otakucode wrote: post #5

There is no such thing as harmful content. There are only harmful consumers of content. Removal of any amount or type of content can not rehabilitate these harmful consumers. For as long as they lack the motive and personal integrity to practice critical thinking on a constant and ongoing basis, no content can ever be safe from them. They will be harmed by even the most direct, fact-based, and honest content. Their i…

This is a very narrow view of human psychology. How do you reconcile this opinion with the knowledge that copycat crime¹ occurs. One would imagine that an adult with critical thinking skills ought be able to observe that some people are easily influenced at least some of the time . Elsewise we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime

The problem with that is that if you set the standards to 'can cause someone to commit bad things' that can apply to literally everything.

Plenty of reactionary assholes have been triggered to violence by disparaged groups having the gall to think of themselves as equals or transgress their taboos against things like interracial marriages. Heck, under that standard we should ban irrational numbers because they caused Pythagorean to drown their discoverer!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#223

Post by Nasrudith »

sriku wrote: post #108

Part of this is a clear stab at plain adulthood - trying to define "harmful content" is just being patronizing. An adult in the eyes of law is someone responsible for their own mind. Would trying to convince people of the existence of a god in the absence of whatever form of evidence deemed necessary to do that count as "harmful content"? In a democracy, you want the thinking at the top to reflect the thinking at the…

Harmful content itself is a notion so dangerously vague and exploitable that you should treat anyone who proposes censoring it as a wannabe dictator.

There has been a lot of evil committed in the name of 'stopping harmful content'. Civil War veterans, maimed from the war were made to not appear in public from 'ugly laws' because of bullshit religious pseudoscience about maternal impression would cause birth defects. Women wearing pants is 'harmful content' because it 'corrupts the morals'. Dissent against corrupt powers is 'harmful content' to 'public order'.

Given the myriad abuses I would recommend inverting Hanlon's razor and assume they know exactly what they are doing until proven that they really are that stupid.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#224

Post by cjhopman »

ams6110 wrote: post #10

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.

When outside observers say something, they are the guardians of the people. When zuckerberg says the same thing (or even a stronger pro-regulation stance) he's the devil.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#225

Post by cjhopman »

serf wrote: post #88

"Jam the door shut behind you." strategies employed by even the earliest monopolists and lobbyists in the US. Or, in other words : "Let's regulate the loopholes that we used for success so as to diminish the opportunity for competition to arise in the same sector." I don't think I expected anything different. Without choosing sides, I have to say that it all sounds very corporate, and I didn't expect anything else fr…

Yep! If a politician were proposing such regulations, we'd welcome her as a guardian of the people. But fuckin A man, this is mark zuckerberg proposing these things. He's a damn snake.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#226

Post by cjhopman »

ravenstine wrote: post #110

The internet doesn't need more rules, it needs less centralization. Mark Zuckerberg wants more rules because his product doesn't scale in the free market. Such a centralized form of communication can only regulate its content via draconian policy or overzealous algorithms, which ironically turn it into a platform that is hardly worth using. People liked Facebook because it had fun stuff on it. When you make your plat…

> it needs less centralization

That's a nice sounding platitude. It'd be fucking terrible for privacy and data protection, though.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#227

Post by cjhopman »

cjhopman wrote: post #226
ravenstine wrote: post #110

The internet doesn't need more rules, it needs less centralization. Mark Zuckerberg wants more rules because his product doesn't scale in the free market. Such a centralized form of communication can only regulate its content via draconian policy or overzealous algorithms, which ironically turn it into a platform that is hardly worth using. People liked Facebook because it had fun stuff on it. When you make your plat…

> it needs less centralization That's a nice sounding platitude. It'd be fucking terrible for privacy and data protection, though.

Not that it doesn't have it's benefits, though. It's just that anytime someone proposes it as a panacea, I feel they must be being either disingenuous or they just completely don't understand what they're talking about.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#228

Post by cjhopman »

ohum wrote: post #189

If Mark Zuckerberg had the best interest of other people, like, all of humanity and the world writ large, in mind, I think it would probably be apparent. Rather, it actually appears as though he is being intentionally deceitful. Perhaps his rationale is based on some measured or calculated outcome, maybe he actually thinks he's doing some good in the world. Hopefully his intention is positive! Or, maybe he is beholde…

Oh please, what could he possibly say or do that would satisfy you.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#229

Post by jonathanhd »

Nasrudith wrote: post #219
bunderbunder wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'.

Selling something poorly and for free is still selling it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#230

Post by 3xblah »

"The rules governing the Internet allowed a generation of entrepreneurs to build services that changed the world and created a lot of value in people's lives."

Shouldn't "generation" be plural? It seems like he is being myopic, ignoring other generations of "entrepreneurs" that built the infrastructure upon which these "services" can run.

Post reply on HN