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

231–240 of 308 posts

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

#231

Post by [deleted] »

solipsism wrote: post #187
HNthrow22 wrote: post #123

FB is the sacrificial lamb, popular scapegoat and effective distraction in this new era of SV policies shaping public opinion, ideas and as a result global politics. It seems misplaced, the amount of vitriol and negative press directed at facebook when from my perspective Google/Twitter/Amazon and even Reddit are far, far worse in terms of aggressively monopolistic behavior and negative effects on society and democra…

If you believe it, say it from your real account. This ubiquitous practice of commenting on contentious topics using throwaways reveals much of that's wrong with HN culture.

[deleted]

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

#232

Post by Shivetya »

HNthrow22 wrote: post #123

FB is the sacrificial lamb, popular scapegoat and effective distraction in this new era of SV policies shaping public opinion, ideas and as a result global politics. It seems misplaced, the amount of vitriol and negative press directed at facebook when from my perspective Google/Twitter/Amazon and even Reddit are far, far worse in terms of aggressively monopolistic behavior and negative effects on society and democra…

The real threat it poses isn't to democracy but to established political players who don't want to lose any influence they have over the electorate. they use the election manipulation bogeyman to scare people into believing all their troubles would be taken care if we just trust the political class.

The real threat is that politicians will step in and decide who can have a platform, how big it can be, and worse, who can use it.

Are these large conglomerates an issue, perhaps in areas of needing regulation to insure we have privacy and no not need to opt in. however they should be able to trade for rights as well and in no case should we ever allow politicians to determine what the platform is or who can use it.

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

#233

Post by fromthestart »

adrianN wrote: post #17
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.

I'm against direct democracy because I don't have the expertise or the time to make informed decisions about everything my government is currently doing for me. Direct democracy will likely devolve into a reign of demagogues imho.

>because I don't have the expertise or the time to make informed decisions about everything my government is currently doing for me.

I don't think our current career politician representatives do either.

>Direct democracy will likely devolve into a reign of demagogues imho.

That's more or less what we already have, I think.

An unpopular solution is some sort of qualification based voting, possibly per issue, say having subject matter expert vote on particular bills within their domain. But there's no realistic way of competence based voting without disenfranchising the vast majority of voters.

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

#234

Post by thrav »

panglott wrote: post #84

The whole business model of Silicon Valley is finding companies that can grow to become abusive monopolies, and then growing them into that. Cut off one head and two will take its place.

In fact, Facebook’s first investor wrote the book on this idea.

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

#235

Post by mindgam3 »

Chris Hughes noticeably pulled a few punches regarding his old friend Zuck’s character:

1. “I don’t blame Mark for his quest for domination. He has demonstrated nothing more nefarious than the virtuous hustle of a talented entrepreneur.”

2. “I don’t think these proposals [Zuck finally asking for regulation] were made in bad faith.”

It’s pretty naïve at this point to say that Zuckerberg has done nothing more than a “virtuous hustle”.

And Zuck asking for weak regulation is such an obvious ploy to stave off stronger action like a breakup that would threaten dominance.

Having made those nitpicks, this is a fairly bombshell article for someone so early at FB to come out swinging.

You can expect more power players to take up this cause in the next quarter or two as early execs start waking up from what basically amounts to Facebook brainwashing.

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

#236

Post by koheripbal »

basetop wrote: post #19

Why just facebook? Why not Amazon, Google, JPM, Disney, etc? "Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, says the company is so big and powerful that it threatens our democracy." "threatens our democracy". I've heard this talking point so much that it has no meaning any longer. It's just another of the oft-repeated talking point created by PR firms as part of a propaganda campaign. If facebook is truly that powerful tha…

Google in particular. What makes a monopoly dangerous is when they control multiple links in the supply chain to push out competitors.

If Google owns Search, Gmail, Android, Analytics, Chat, Google Fi, Google Fiber, Chrome, GPay, etc... then they are able leverage one monopoly to establish monopolies elsewhere.

...and that is ultimately what is most destructive to Competition and consumer value. All of the above could be separate companies. Facebook gets a lot of bad press, but Google is the big danger.

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

#237

Post by zaroth »

kerkeslager wrote: post #206
zaroth wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that’s not what’s happened in the anecdote above, at all. Facebook provides services that people want to use, like Login, or that provides real value better than the competitors (Marketplace). Complaining that you “have” to use Marketplace because things sell faster on it is totally bizarre.

> Facebook provides services that people want to use, like Login, or that provides real value better than the competitors (Marketplace). That's almost always true of monopolistic practices, so I don't see your point. > Complaining that you “have” to use Marketplace because things sell faster on it is totally bizarre. If things can't be sold quickly, they often can't be sold at all. There's no place to store this stuf…

I just don't understand how Facebook helping you sell stuff faster is a bad thing for you, or for Facebook.

What excessive control or monopolistic practice did Facebook exert in order to help you sell your stuff faster?

Being better at something because you have a lot of users and a halfway decent UI isn't anti-competitive.

Contrast this, for example, with Intel paying competitors not to also sell AMD chips, or Google listing their own inferior products higher in organic Search results.

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

#238

Post by filoleg »

hhjinks wrote: post #230
stickfigure wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct, but your friends are more than capable of backing up their log of emails with you and handing it over to someone else. How is it not your friend’s fault?

And CA “leak” was way more tame than this, just the information displayed on your profile for all of your friends.

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

#239

Post by greedo »

thebigspacefuck wrote: post #155
SamuelAdams wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example: what if cell phone carriers only let you talk / text with people on the same carrier network? Suddenly everyone would need to buy T-Mobile, or Verizon, or Sprint, just to talk to one another. Or carry 4 different sim cards, similar to having multiple accounts. Sounds terrible? Good. That's what Facebook is doing now.

Facebook lets you share posts from Twitter and Instagram, not sure about what else

Umm, Facebook owns Instagram.

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

#240

Post by rzmds »

guymcgwire wrote: post #226
stickfigure wrote: post #122

Earlier 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.

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 a…

The mass media is there to damage Facebook as much as they can, because Facebook is taking them out of business. Never forget that.
Post reply on HN