[deleted]
Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
221–230 of 308 posts
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed! Let's be clear, the issues go far beyond clicks, but the ways that Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and the others in similar roles in the industry have, at best, failed to notice (and thereby allowed) how their platforms to be exploited to manipulate society. At best, Zuckerberg is a Useful Idiot (in the Vladmir Lenin sense), easily manipulated into tasks that, in this case undermine democracy and make the world safer fo…
Though you didn't explicitly say it, since all examples relate to russia and rubles.. this isn't a russia problem, it's a social media problem. Plenty of US, Chinese, Saudi, Israeli, ABC, XYZ, PQ oligarchs manipulating public opinion via social media to suit their own political objectives. Depending on the time and the situation, one country or another may/may not have more 'skin in the game' depending on the context…
Absolutely!
China, Saudi and others are also major players in that game, each with their own angle, and often with overlapping interests, particularly in undermining democracy and making it safe for (often criminal) autocracies, by weakening the democratic institutions and/or warping them into services for their personal protection/gain.
I focused on Russia simply because that foe alone is a massive topic unto itself, and is currently most relevant (tho Jeff Bezos might first highlight the Saudis... but that is actually an example of overlap with Saudi and RUS interests).
So, yes, it is a problem at the root of social media and indeed search services too. I expect that at first, they never considered that threat model (just as airline security had never considered the threat model of hijacking an airplane to turn it into a missile prior to 2001). But they are also remarkably naive & slow to recognize the threat model and astonishingly feeble in their response to an existential threat.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea of your "company 1" is actually super interesting, essentially social Graph as a Service(GAAS?). But , I don't think that addresses any of the issues people actually have with facebook. What does facebook running both the front and backend of their site have to do with their market power? That company 1 would still retain 90% of Facebooks value, as it would be the social graph where people acknowledg…
They use their market power against Company 2 competitors. Its waaay too hard to get a Company 2 type company off the ground, because you have to build/buy/lease the equivelant Company 1 services (from AWS etc) and assemble them in a logical way, all while getting a product off the ground before Company 2 can clone you. Giving people a huge head start, by eliminating the need to recreate Company 1, means the Public w…
Essentially then, you're advocating for FB's core infra to become a competitor to AWS/Azure/GCP?
I guess I just don't see why this is necessary at all. Company 2 is essentially exactly the same as FB would be now if it switched its infra to AWS, with pretty much the same pros and cons as a company. Facebook would have a stressful couple years of transition, and then we'd all be right back at square one.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, increasingly, you are forced to use Facebook. I went through the arduous process of deleting my Facebook account about 8 years ago. 2 years ago, I started doing freelance software development, and at some point almost every one of my clients has wanted me to implement a Facebook login. I could say no, but then I'm likely losing my livelihood. And in order to implement Facebook logins, you need a Facebook accoun…
To you - my advice would be to outsource implementation of FB logins. For your girlfriend, and in general, for people looking for odd jobs, it is understandably impossible to avoid the platform.
I have considered outsourcing logins (and similarly ethically distasteful work) and even contacted some third parties to do it. However, I ran into two issues which caused me to abandon the idea:
1. When I considered the necessity of onboarding a third party, it's very difficult to prevent the cost from becoming prohibitive.
2. My client hired me because he wanted ME to do the work. I have over a decade of industry experience, lots of high-quality training, speak English fluently and am good at communication. Those skills and experience result in me producing quality work. The only way I was able to subcontract to someone in such a way that the cost approached not being prohibitive was to hire developers from the third world. That puts me in the position of a) trying to sell my client on lower-quality developers at basically the same cost, or b) doing this in secret, which I refuse to do, because it's unprofessional and worse than implementing Facebook in my personal ethics.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that there be an API to access social network information? That is literally what Facebook had, and what people excoriate them over thanks to Cambridge Analytica. The Facebook haters are driving social network data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"? You can have privacy (or at least the illusion of privacy), or you can have access. You cannot have both.
This sounds to me like a backwards argument. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revolved around unsanctioned access to data. I don't think the premise of having an API was the problem, it was the lack of transparency and control offered to Facebook's users.
unsanctioned access to data
You misunderstand what happened. 1) Users installed a quiz app, 2) Users explicitly accepted a permission dialog that included "information about your friends", 3) The quiz app saved this data, 4) Cambridge Analytica bought the app (and data).
If CA got your data, it's because one of your friends sanctioned the critical link in this chain.
Facebook at least provided this level of security, however illusory it may have been. In a decentralized system, anyone who touches a piece of data can pass it on to whoever they want. There is no way to enforce "my friends can look at my data but it's my data and they aren't allowed to pass it on".
Privacy advocates and decentralization advocates are mortal enemies; their only common cause is that it's popular to hate on Facebook these days.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#226Better 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…
Are you suggesting that there be an API to access social network information? That is literally what Facebook had, and what people excoriate them over thanks to Cambridge Analytica. The Facebook haters are driving social network data into a silo; how else are you going to "keep control of your data"? You can have privacy (or at least the illusion of privacy), or you can have access. You cannot have both.
And let's not forget the controversy from just five months ago where the nytimes reported (and dozens of other media outlets blindly re-reported) that facebook allowed companies like spotify, netflix, and the royal bank of canada to read, write, and delete our private messages. All because the nytimes's tech reporters don't understand how an API works. Or maybe they do, but the nuance doesn't fit with their current agenda.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#227It’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.
Let's not forgot social media platforms did organize an Egyptian revolt. When there have been natural disasters or terrorist attacks, Facebook has sent notifications to people's friends telling them they are ok. Also, tons of small brands now can exist due to Facebook and Instagram, and these companies can now do so from any location in the country or world. Facebook is a very metrics driven company, and privacy has…
We should also not forget the genocide in Myanmar which has been enabled by and attributed to a lack of moderation and the prevalence of hateful fake news on facebook.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#228Better 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…
> What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the way email from different providers does.
And then things will get way, way worse than facebook, because nobody is there to censor anyone, and then the nytimes will be asking to censor the entire internet because reasons. No, please. Let people stick to facebook where they can be herded appropriately.
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
They use their market power against Company 2 competitors. Its waaay too hard to get a Company 2 type company off the ground, because you have to build/buy/lease the equivelant Company 1 services (from AWS etc) and assemble them in a logical way, all while getting a product off the ground before Company 2 can clone you. Giving people a huge head start, by eliminating the need to recreate Company 1, means the Public w…
Essentially then, you're advocating for FB's core infra to become a competitor to AWS/Azure/GCP? I guess I just don't see why this is necessary at all. Company 2 is essentially exactly the same as FB would be now if it switched its infra to AWS, with pretty much the same pros and cons as a company. Facebook would have a stressful couple years of transition, and then we'd all be right back at square one.
AFAIK nobody is offering PaaS for social networks. Youre missing the part where "ads, anti-evil, localization, social graph, development tools, frameworks, runtimes" are part of Company 1. If I want to spin up my own ad network, or social graph, identity service, spam blocking service, I can go to Company 1 and lease their technology, and plug it into my product. They wont have access to the data in the social graph, or in the ad network, but they provide the software infrastructure that makes it possible. They are the flux capacitor of Company 2 style social networks.
The barriers to entry into the social network realm (at scale) can be high (security, spam, compliance, censorship, localization.)
The government splitting them horizontally, means that by virtue of Company 1 existing, competing with Company 2 is infinitely easier, and a great way for consumers to benefit from a more diverse marketplace. Possibly the next best way besides the government funding a public/private hybrid version of Company 1, or the government enforcing some kind of interoperability standards.
Breaking up facebook this way leaves the consumer client side fb roughly how it is (and still at risk for privacy fines, and fcc action) but levels the playing field for the next generation of companies. Thats the kind of goal antitrust action should be looking to accomplish. Not to punish facebook, but to make a fair competitive marketplace for social media and messaging clients. Facebooks privacy and other scandals should be handled by other government bodies, they arent antitrust imho. FCC, AG, DoJ (for other reasons like criminal negligence.)
Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds to me like a backwards argument. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revolved around unsanctioned access to data. I don't think the premise of having an API was the problem, it was the lack of transparency and control offered to Facebook's users.
unsanctioned access to data You misunderstand what happened. 1) Users installed a quiz app, 2) Users explicitly accepted a permission dialog that included "information about your friends" , 3) The quiz app saved this data, 4) Cambridge Analytica bought the app (and data). If CA got your data, it's because one of your friends sanctioned the critical link in this chain. Facebook at least provided this level of security…
How is that not unsanctioned access? I can't get a mortgage in your name just because we're friends.