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

251–260 of 266 posts

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

#251

Post by [deleted] »

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'.

[deleted]

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

#252

Post by otakucode »

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

I don't understand the leap from my comment to concluding that I'm suggesting people can't be easily influenced. I was specifically talking about people who can be easily influenced, and the impossibility of shielding those people from content which would influence them negatively. The way a bit of content influences a person is not tied to the content so much as it is tied to the person consuming it. This is supported by research on confirmation bias and similar work. The idea that there exists content which is, independent from the mindset of the audience, not possible to be interpreted in a negative manner is what I dispute.

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

#253

Post by quadrangle »

quadrangle wrote: post #248
_mog1 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It would make entire classes of dangerous but also potentially useful companies illegal. The same way that we don't currently get to experience all the potential that is blocked because of privacy rules around medical records. At the very least, there's been no societal consensus that we want the trade-offs that come from allowing every click, view, email, and contact to be scanned and used for profit in whatever way…

addendum: note that by "lose the benefits…" etc. I mean at a social level. It's very distinct to just not have certain businesses exist compared to the self-sacrifice of opting-out personally but still living in a world with these things otherwise.

I'd much rather have the status quo (and stronger) around privacy regulations for medical records than live in a world without that but then be one of a few people who forgo use of common medical facilitaties over personal privacy objections.

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

#254

Post by DougN7 »

bryan_w wrote: post #249
sixothree wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, no-one is forcing you to vote a particular way. Persuasion works and can be bought with money. It would be naive to think any of us in this thread are immune to persuasion.

This reply doesn't persuade me to belive that persuasion works, thus proving that people can't be arbitrary persuaded into ideas that they don't agree with.

> thus proving ...

Seriously? There is a $20 Billion dollar advertising industry with countless studies behind it, and hundreds of thousands of people working in, all of which says persuasion works. You’re going to need a little more proof.

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

#255

Post by DougN7 »

C14L wrote: post #244
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…

> data portability This is the important part. And it has to be in real time. So you could just switch from one "Social Network Access Provider" to another. Fb would just be one of them. They screw up privacy? People can just go somewhere else. Too many radical bs shows up on your timeline? Move to a provider that gives you a event stream you like. Real competition.

How does that work if your social graph doesn’t move with you? This reminds me of the 90’s when we had so many messenger apps - you needed different apps to talk to different people. Data portability doesn’t help that. I suppose Zuck is well aware of that.

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

#256

Post by croisillon »

AgentME wrote: post #140
croisillon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i wondered about it too, i imagine it comes from "cut me some slack" = "cut the criticism", hence slack=criticism

In the phrase "cut me some slack", the speaker is asking for more slack. It's like "give me a slice of meat" or "cut some meat for me".

ooooooh :) I learned something thank you!

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

#257

Post by rocqua »

intended wrote: post #242
rocqua wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enga…

Playing devils advocate here, i want to build my understanding out further. My question is: So what? If we have good privacy laws tomorrow (assume temporary magic), how does that do anything but change the modus operandi of manipulation? wait for a large event, and then flash your ads. Similar to pre internet behavior, true. But it’s still at internet scale, and you could target via groups right?

Currently, you can split the discourse. I'd hope that the majority of people would be outraged if sandy hook denial was pushed to them for example.

If you cannot target your message, you need to take into account everyone who will hear it. This requires a more palpable message, and almost forces the adoption of a universal framework of facts.

Similarly, the profiling has lead to echo chambers. Having that fall away also helps create some universal discourse.

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

#258

Post by robdachshund »

ddingus wrote: post #176
enraged_camel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but we all want to know who is doing the persuading.

And we do because advocacy has three pillars Character Emotion Rational

You mean persuasion? Ethos, logos, pathos.

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

#259

Post by olefoo »

fnord123 wrote: post #192
olefoo wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch out you are treading perilously close to one of the "things you can't say"[1] in the context of this site. Some people block people on twitter for implying just this sort of thing... 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

>Some people block people on twitter Marc Andreesen. olefoo is talking about Marc Andreesen.

Among others, perhaps.

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

#260

Post by Shish2k »

_rpd wrote: post #25
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…

> data portability Making the friend/family graph portable would allow others to compete with Facebook. What's the state of the discussion on how to do this sensibly?

> Making the friend/family graph portable would allow others to compete with Facebook

It's also the exact feature that allowed Cambridge Analytica to happen ("Push this button to share your address book with this third-party company") - seems like people are vocally against allowing that to happen just as strongly as they are vocally in favour of implementing all the features which allow it to happen, somehow not connecting the two...

Post reply on HN