Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

Post by dominotw » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:34 PM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #108

Better than breaking up social networks would be to force them to interoperate on an open protocol. When I first signed up for Facebook I was disappointed that only other Facebook users could see my account. Then when Google+ came on the scene I thought they'd worked out a way to interoperate with Facebook, but instead Google just wanted their own silo. What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the w…

Post by criddell » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

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.

Post by jerf » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #87

saintPirelli wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't think it's possible to outlaw what Facebook does without unforeseen consequences. You don't have to outlaw it, just tax revenue from the undesirable behaviors to dis-incentivize them. In Facebook's case (and also that of much of the web), most of what people object to is the practices that support personal profile-targeted ads. So tax those until page context-targeted ads become attractive.

Post by criddell » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #112

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.

Most ppl in the world don't have credit cards to pay for a service online.

Post by c0vfefe » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #99

patwolf wrote: post #64

"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 w…

"X is a good person, but ..." is simply something that a lot of people have been taught to do when they want to criticize someone but don't want to appear to be entirely negative (without necessarily having anything nice to say about the person). It's a common strategy to try to come off as more polite, especially when your statement is written or will be quoted. A common aphorism that approximates this is "you catch…