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

Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 308 posts

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#61

Post by saintPirelli »

Nextgrid wrote: post #14

It’s time to outlaw stalking-based business models. If you just break up Facebook but don’t outlaw the underlying scummy business model something else will just take its place.

I don't think it's possible to outlaw what Facebook does without unforeseen consequences. Facebook is fast-food for the mind. You know it's bad for you, you know you shouldn't do it, you know there are healthier alternatives, the fact that corporations profit off of making people fat and sick is outrageous, but you can't very well outlaw the concept of beef in a bun.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#62

Post by istjohn »

decasteve wrote: post #28

I disagree. But I'm not on any, nor use any, of Facebook's services. "It's Time to Break Up with Facebook" is a better title. > We already have the tools we need to check the domination of Facebook. We just seem to have forgotten about them. That evokes different ideas with me and I'm sure it does for many users of this site. We have the tools and capability to employ them to make alternatives. We're so focused on th…

WhatsApp and IG _were_ alternatives, but our timid regulators were happy to let FB buy them up. Naivete is thinking the free market can regulate itself. Markets are not naturally free. They only function when zealous regulators keep the gears well-oiled.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#63

Post by chadmeister »

josh2600 wrote: post #51

I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google. Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook?

It's not any less evil and needs to be broken up just as quickly, but focusing on one giant and not trying to simultaneously fight both is probably a better idea. At the very least this sets precedent for splitting up the other.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#64

Post by patwolf »

"Mark Zuckerberg is a good guy. But his company is a threat to our economy and democracy."

"Mark is a good, kind person. But I’m angry that his focus on growth led him to sacrifice security and civility for clicks."

I always find it difficult to take an argument seriously when someone is defined simply as "good". It glosses over a lot of things, like what motivates a person and how we define "good". For example, if we can agree that Facebook's privacy issues are bad, and that Mark was directly responsible for them, then it seems that either

a) Mark selfishly disregards privacy for the growth of the company. (bad)

b) Mark does care about privacy, but if he doesn't grow the company, he'll be forced out and someone less good will take the helm. (good)

c) Mark thinks that all the good Facebook does outweighs the negatives, and therefore the sacrifice of privacy is a net positive. (good)

For reference, that first quote is taken from the NYT front page summary, and the second from the body of the editorial.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#65

Post by jondubois »

josh2600 wrote: post #51

I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google. Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook?

Both should be broken up. They are both equally dangerous. It's just that Facebook's standards have been degrading faster and so it's been more noticeable.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#66

Post by sctb »

kantos2 wrote: post #45
Radle wrote: post #2

I think it would be enough to ban Zuckerberg from running any public corp in his lifetime. The Facebook problems are all Mark Zuckerberg problems, it starts with the people he pics for management the priority he sets for a business which provides an important part of american infrastructure. Zuckerberg as CEO of Facebook is the same for the USA as putting a teenager in control of the United States Department of Energ…

>I think it would be enough to ban Zuckerberg from running any public corp in his lifetime. I always wonder ho this kind of trash is created. You retarded because you father raped you? What it is?

If you break the guidelines egregiously like this again we'll ban the account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#67

Post by josh2600 »

iagooar wrote: post #57
josh2600 wrote: post #51

I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google. Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook?

In a way, it is less evil. It has not been caught selling user data the same way FB has. It does not have the same reach / social control, since it's never managed to create a social network with enough traction. Still, some control is needed, but I think we should all agree that Facebook should be top priority?

I think I agree with you, but I also feel like a few missteps out of alignment with that narrative and google would be up for anti-trust conversation just like Facebook. I’m mostly musing about how your relationship with regulators has a lot to do with how you treat them and the public. When people perceive you as good, you can get away with monetizing people’s data. When people perceive you as bad, you’re the monster selling data to the Russians.

It’s a matter of perspective (and sometimes reality). Let’s not pretend that the Russians couldn’t have bought google ads, it’s simply that Facebook’s audience targeting is way, way better than google’s because their surveillance economy is richer.

It’s complicated. Is Facebook simply too good at targeting?

This is part of why I’m working on mobilecoin. Can you imagine Facebook ad targeting if they also have all of your payment information?

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#68

Post by jaabe »

josh2600 wrote: post #51

I have trouble understanding why we should break up Facebook but not google. Is it because we think google is less evil than Facebook?

Google hasn’t committed the same evils Facebook has. They’ve been smarter about handling personal data in the west, and their platforms haven’t been used to attack democracy.

In Asia their platforms haven’t been used to help countries commit genocide.

I mean, you could make the case for breaking up google for monopoly reasons, but google has mostly just done business the way amazon or Microsoft has. And unlike Facebook, google has been branching out of the advertising business for a while with their cloud services, hardware and paid software.

If I want a privacy secure add-free gmail, I can actually get that by throwing money after google.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#69

Post by shakna »

kantos2 wrote: post #46
uptown wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not be on Facebook but you can bet your friends or family have shared your contact info with them. And even if that exposure is limited, you can bet they’ve got a shadow profile of you.

So what?

You can't break up with your stalker.

If Facebook is building a data portfolio of you, which is highly likely, then you can't avoid them, which means the problems that arise from the practice still impact you, whether or not you want them to.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#70

Post by craigsmansion »

kmlx wrote: post #3

“Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, says the company is so big and powerful that it threatens our democracy.” considering how flawed democracies are, i say let democracy die. adopt democracy 2.0 (no parties, no president/pm, no cabinet ministers, elected speaker, continuous citizen participation) and that’s that.

Sounds like a great idea, so:

- How do you feel about the minimal training of seafarers and the existing directives to that end?

- Also, the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road?

- Amending the regulations contracts for sales of goods?

- Postal services directive?

- Sustainable urban mobility?

- and, of course, cableway installations, how about those?

"Well", you might say, "If you're going to pull facetious examples out of thin air..."

But I'm not; you can find the pdfs here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124949/LUCY_ANDERSON/m...

It's just a list of an MEP picked at random where she was shadow rapporteur.

Are you really going to read through those documents to make an informed decision about all these topics?

Democracy and its politics isn't just about the fun, high-profile stuff you find interesting.

Personally I'm pretty happy I can pay someone to read and write all that stuff for me, and then make a decision based on a broader alignment that I share with them.

Post reply on HN