Might blacklist their site with a content blocker if they are indeed hijacking the back button.
Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
101–110 of 275 posts
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue this site can make you feel the same way :)
Exactly. No site gives me more anxiety than HN while being so addictive at the same time.
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#103I love tech. It pains me to come to the conclusion that in Facebook, we have created something that should not exist: an addicative worldwide mob where peddlers can sell emotionally manipulative ideas to the people least able to handle them, whether it's clicking cows all day long or believing Elvis is still alive. In defense, I don't think anybody that was on-board at the beginning realized this. I do, however, feel…
I view it the opposite way: We underestimated as a society how many people were feeling bad. Addictions to alcohol is horrible, but their harm doesn’t scale. With social networks, we suddenly see what we chose to ignore before: The swathes of MGTOWs, Incels, doubters, we also see the swathes of “scientific studies” which were provably wrong, the lies of the medias when you compare the scientific study and how the art…
If you'll allow, I'll use a political example from 15+ years ago.
When young Bush was running for president, you'd see commentators on TV talking about which candidate had some demographic. Such-and-such had the 50+ white male vote, so-and-so had the hispanic vote, and so on.
These people did not know what they were talking about, but it made for good TV. The people who knew what they were talking about, the folks like Karl Rove, knew that today they were looking to talk about subject X in context Y to a certain type of voter described by several adjectives in precinct 7 of the south side of Columbia, SC.
Pick a word that describes a social problem, say homelessness. There's not one homelessness, there's a dozen or more, each with their own qualities. There's people who are the victim of a disaster, people who have medical bills, people with addiction problems, people living in poverty on purpose for religious reasons, etc. Not only do the reasons vary, the possible solutions vary by personality, demographic, geographic location and resources, and so on.
Your response to my point demonstrates the problem. We talk about social problems in grand and expansive terms because we have to. Otherwise we'd spend forever in analysis. Politicians get elected based on grand visions for social problems expressed in expansive terms. But the actual problems themselves are highly nuanced. So what you're suggesting is that we throw everybody worldwide into one bucket, stick a label on them, and attempt to help them. That's only going to be a workable solution in only the most simple cases. In fact it's not workable. I'm being kind.
Worse, for all of the cases where it doesn't help, you've just given over a monopoly of ideas, labels, and solutions to some company that's beholden to nobody, Facebook. So what will happen, what is happening now, is that people looking to exploit problems are working at the very detailed level. Right now there's probably some scammer looking to target 70+ white females in Sioux City Iowa who voted for Bernie last time. That guy is going to exploit the hell out of his target. There are thousands of targets like this. But when we identify the problem, all we get is how great it is to have some universal solution to addiction or something.
Yes, in grand terms wouldn't it be great to have some solution to X? I'd love it. But that's not how these kinds of solutions work. What we're doing is enabling the people with bad intent to have their way while justifying it all with promises of how huge categories of people might be helped. That's bullshit, and it's the kind of bullshit we've put up with for far too long from SV, making money with one hand while giving out platitudes with another, trusting on the complexity of the application to hide what's really happening from the average voter. It's only continuing. Now, however, we're going to take it to the next level, regulatory capture.
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#104Why does it matter so much that it's Facebook proposing it, and that they have already implemented it?
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. FB has enriched my life at many ways, when my father was on deathbed I realized how much he used fb to just keep track of me every single time he remembered me. We spoke daily but I did not know he used facebook to "be with me". I do understand your criticism but it is in the same line as how christian priests opposed education for peasants. They argued that if the ordinary massed could read it would mean…
> I am pretty sure similar criticism has be forced on TV, Cellphones, Comic books and what not. No, there is a shit load of difference. It is far more costly to spread misinformation through those other channels. Sure nation-states and tv/cable-companies with agenda will still exist, but ordinary citizen like me, with an agenda, won’t be able to anonymously spread conspiracy theories for $100 ~ $1000
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#106Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#107There should be only one regulation for fb, display following warning on all pages/screens: Statutory Warning: This product is specifically designed to cause behavioral addiction so you are guided down a slippery slope of over consumption & that is how this company makes money. Overuse of this product is known to cause - anxiety, depression, low self esteem, constant craving for attention, short attention spans, inab…
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#108The one regulation that could save us from Facebook would be to mandate an open API. That would solve the network effect problem for new social networks and enable real competition.
Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#109Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I view it the opposite way: We underestimated as a society how many people were feeling bad. Addictions to alcohol is horrible, but their harm doesn’t scale. With social networks, we suddenly see what we chose to ignore before: The swathes of MGTOWs, Incels, doubters, we also see the swathes of “scientific studies” which were provably wrong, the lies of the medias when you compare the scientific study and how the art…
There are a lot of fallacies here. I'll take just one. If you'll allow, I'll use a political example from 15+ years ago. When young Bush was running for president, you'd see commentators on TV talking about which candidate had some demographic. Such-and-such had the 50+ white male vote, so-and-so had the hispanic vote, and so on. These people did not know what they were talking about, but it made for good TV. The peo…
So for example the net cost of normalising college debt, and the regulatory exceptions to bankruptcy etc around this form of debt, is not simply a generation entering the workforce in debt. It's massive concrete measurable inequality between those who can afford to work in internships (unpaid or underpaid) and those who's loans prevent that. It's exclusion from education for those who cannot take on enormous debt (or won't be granted loans). It's a shift to crude utilitarianism in education generally, because the insane cost of a degree means you'd be insane to do one that doesn't 'repay' its perceived value etc etc.
This is true again and again for the social issues created by the American economic-social pact (call it neoliberalism or what have you). From the knock on domestic violence, abuse and intergenerational trauma caused by the warrior culture of Americans gargantuan military, to its normalisation of militarised policing.
What all these issues have in common it a cultural unwillingness to tackle what are often substantively simple root causes. Issues which have been dealt with successfully in other cultures.
So in confusing how the electorate can be trivially manipulated by playing into their psychographic preferences and prejudices, with the relative complexity of social issues you're actually conceding to the delusion that politics is entertainment. That it's not candidates positions that matter, but the perception of those positions. That really most problems are simply impossible to solve (rather than politically unfeasible in the American context). That the political confusion and anger of the present moment is exclusively generated through persuasion rather than the justifiable (though often misdirected) result of concrete solvable issues.
We can disagree about the causes of social issues in America, and their solutions; but its inarguable that there has been no effort to systematically test and deploy policy interventions at a national level in any kind of evidence based way. The map in America, has become the territory.