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

261–270 of 308 posts

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

#261

Post by physicsyogi »

koheripbal wrote: post #236
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 coul…

> 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.

You're right that Google leverages its portfolio of services to get a foothold in other ventures, but not one of those listed above is a monopoly. There are solid and well-performing alternatives/competitors to nearly all of Google's services. Their (and Facebook's) online advertising business is another story.

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

#262

Post by toss1 »

toss1 wrote: post #132
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…

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…

Also Relevant

Russian GRU agents convicted in a coup on the Montenegro govt to prevent it from joining NATO https://outline.com/6ruvBv

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

#263

Post by davemp »

drngdds wrote: post #215

>But there is no constitutional right to harass others or live-stream violence. Pretty sure the Supreme Court would disagree with you on that one, bud. They aren't fond of adding new categories of unprotected speech. See Trope #3 in this article: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

The trope "But there is no constitutional right to [blah]" is blatantly ignoring the 9th amendment. [1]

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9

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

#264

Post by bluGill »

chupasaurus wrote: post #219
bluGill wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only use google for youtube and cloud print. I'd like to break up with the latter but I haven't figured out how (history says google will force this in the near future). YouTube has a lot of great content (mixed in with even more worthless garbage) that isn't elsewhere, so I can't figure out how I'd break up with it.

On the other side, Google is tracking you on a lot of sites unless you use measures to counter it.

True. I wish there was a good way to stop that.

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

#265

Post by Xeanort »

bluGill wrote: post #264
chupasaurus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side, Google is tracking you on a lot of sites unless you use measures to counter it.

True. I wish there was a good way to stop that.

A good AdBlocker (like uBlock Origin) is usually enough. Also the tracking protection of Firefox is not bad.

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

#266

Post by joe_the_user »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #121
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…

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.

The problem is that social networking protocols would inherently be much more complex than phone protocols (but it could be done). Moreover, some body would have to standardize those protocols as well as discovering some way of preventing spam. My hunch that I know get more spam on my phone number than either my email or my Facebook account because phones still have open points of entry.

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

#267

Post by apecat »

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…

Moxie Marlinspike, of Open Whisper Systems, had some pretty pessimistic things to say about how stagnant federated protocols become, and why they avoided that approach with Signal. https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

End result: Signal is a real, usable tool, the recommendation of which is fully actionable security and privacy advice you can share with anyone who is capable of using WhatsApp.

Here's some HN discussion on the post, and a piece with counter arguments. The latter, I feel, misses the entire point of how urgent the need for usable privacy and security tools is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11668912 https://gultsch.de/objection.html

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

#268

Post by theseatoms »

joe_the_user wrote: post #266
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.

The problem is that social networking protocols would inherently be much more complex than phone protocols (but it could be done). Moreover, some body would have to standardize those protocols as well as discovering some way of preventing spam. My hunch that I know get more spam on my phone number than either my email or my Facebook account because phones still have open points of entry.

The open protocol could start small and gradually grow over time, maintaining backwards compatibility.

The incentives aren't there, of course.

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

#269

Post by GcVmvNhBsU »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #254
georgeecollins wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Facebook controlled access to the API, not users. Given me the ability to control access to my social network information could be a good idea.

In the Cambridge Analytica Case users where asked "do you want to share your data with that Game/quiz?" And users agreed. For average users understanding that control is hard, especially if people with bad objects are on the other side.

Not just your (user X) data, but your friend's (user Y) data. What if the API had sent user Y a confirmation, like "User X just installed CAapp and wants to access your information. Allow or Deny?"

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

#270

Post by joe_the_user »

basch wrote: post #258
c0vfefe wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any entity sufficiently large to lobby legislators or offer campaign donations can threaten democracy more directly, and in fact it happens every day.

but the "threatens democracy here" is equivalent to "but stupid and malicious people have a megaphone, and they are shouting things I dont want them to be shouting. dumb people are listening and i dont want them to be allowed to listen."

And further the problem is "I want my megaphone to stupid people to be it" rather than "we need an educated electorate for our democracy".

American democracy of fifty years ago had the mainstream press as gatekeepers. At the same time, you had a measure of the press taking it's job seriously, the state being separate from private industry and the education system producing an informed populace and the middle class having an material stake in the running of the society.

Today you see a decline in all this stuff alone with the rise of the Internet. Phenomena like anti-Vax movements and other conspiracy theories are certainly corrosive but if one is looking for analogies to this, one might look at the problematic politics of third world nations where wild rumors and demagogues have been a characterizing factor for a long time. And all the mainstream institutions of the US certain bear blame for allowing the "third-world-ization" of the US.

Post reply on HN