Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 275 posts

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#161

Post by baryphonic »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #82

I 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 love tech, too. This is why I have divested myself from Facebook, beyond messaging tools (FB Messenger and WhatsApp).

If tech is building new edifices to the capabilities of tech, then Facebook is certainly tech, and the nightmare Facebook has become is inevitable. (Though I agree with other commenters that FB probably matters much less than we with in-built pro-tech biases are willing to believe.)

Otherwise, if tech is "doing more with less," then Facebook is extremely hard to justify as tech.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#162

Post by Tyr42 »

mcv wrote: post #143

The most important regulation for Facebook is that they should provide a way to communicate with other social networks, so someone on Diaspora, MeWe or Friendica can follow people on Facebook and vice versa. That way, people won't be forced onto Facebook simply because their friends are there. And once that has been done, it'll also be easier to cut Facebook into smaller chunks if it turns out they're still a monopol…

Would this also make it easier to slurp data from Diaspora, in the name of providing friend recommendations?

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#163

Post by justaguyhere »

ggcdn wrote: post #160
capableweb wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European, I think Australia went even further and just removed all the branding from packages completely. In Europe, brands still get to have some design.

Canadian packages too. They required a rather graphic health warning over 50% of the surface area (showing a smokers lungs with explanation, etc) and also removed branding. So it’s a giant health warning over the top half, and then a plain brown lower half with the name/type

Curious - do these packages work? Have they reduced smoking addiction?

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#164

Post by threatofrain »

blunderkid wrote: post #16

There 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…

If FB is addictive then you need the medical community in on this, but the fact that they aren’t means you’re left alone making medical arguments about the affects of FB. Maybe my speech, this very one, is designed to give you the flu. But when we’re talking stakes like serious medical claims, then we should have serious medical consensus.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#165

Post by inerte »

fbelzile wrote: post #146
blunderkid wrote: post #16

There 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…

Instead of regulation, maybe have browsers give you a warning on how the site your about to visit treats your personal data? We already have warnings in one way or another for: expired SSL certificates, lack of HTTPS, potential malware sites, if your account may have been breached (at least in Firefox), requests for your location or to show notifications, etc. The next logical step is to have our user agent warn us a…

And how are you going to force browsers to do that, if not through regulation?

What about mobile apps? Gotta get OS makers in that too. Put Google and Apple and all the Android variations there.

Plus there’s FB own devices, like Portal and HTC First.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#166

Post by mantap »

justaguyhere wrote: post #163
ggcdn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canadian packages too. They required a rather graphic health warning over 50% of the surface area (showing a smokers lungs with explanation, etc) and also removed branding. So it’s a giant health warning over the top half, and then a plain brown lower half with the name/type

Curious - do these packages work? Have they reduced smoking addiction?

Maybe. What helps more is 1) indoor smoking bans, stopping people from smoking socially inside bars and restaurants, 2) heavy taxation, 3) vaping.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#167

Post by justaguyhere »

dokein wrote: post #134
mgraczyk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always disliked Facebook and still don't care much for it, but having worked on ranking there for a few months, comments like this just sound incredibly naive. Facebook is not "specifically designed to cause addiction". It's designed by a complicated process with many people trying to maximize many competing metrics, some of which might go up when people are "addicted". In fact the complete opposite is one of the m…

I don't think Facebook is "evil" by design, but the end result is the same. The framework is as follows: There were probably thousands of internet companies that competed to be the dominant sites in the 90s and 00s. By several orders of magnitude the predominant business model is ads for eyeballs, and the predominant network effect scales with number of users. Several factors influenced success but, on average, sites…

We are all addicted to something or the other. There are people who spend insane amount of time on HN (including me) - sure it is billion times better than FB, but it is still an addiction.

This is one of those things where no amount of regulation or blaming FB (or instagram or twitter or HN or whatever) is going to help much. It might be more fruitful to think about why people spend so much time online outside of productive work, instead of having person to person interactions, playing sports, playing music etc. Just a small example - there is not a single park within 10 miles of where I live, but there are at least 3 big malls (sprawling ones with dozens of stores).

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#168

Post by inerte »

_red wrote: post #127
Dumblydorr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does matter, look at who is in power after democratic elections where FB aided and abetted foreign nations to lie and deceive voters.

Yes. those crafty russians who forced the american elite hollow-out the middle class, undermined Bernies primary, and installed unelectable professional grifters on the Dem ticket. You should also consider that you are not viewing reality correctly.

Why not both? Or rather, all of that? The fact salaries for the bottom half of America are flat for 40 years doesn’t change the facts on Russia and FB.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#169

Post by tyfon »

dageshi wrote: post #91
tyfon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least HN isn't designed to keep you addicted (sorry, engaged) :)

Well, it is in its format. Like Digg and Reddit before it, the addictive part comes from a constant stream of new "stuff" for us to consume. To anyone looking at us pre reddit/digg many of us would look "addicted" to HN based on our usage of it.

Yes I won't deny the format is addicting, it's just not specifically designed to optimise addiction like certain other sites.

Re: Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets

#170

Post by celdon25 »

EGreg wrote: post #139
mgraczyk wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always disliked Facebook and still don't care much for it, but having worked on ranking there for a few months, comments like this just sound incredibly naive. Facebook is not "specifically designed to cause addiction". It's designed by a complicated process with many people trying to maximize many competing metrics, some of which might go up when people are "addicted". In fact the complete opposite is one of the m…

Actually, we are addicted because of the tragedy of the unmanaged commons, where the commons is human attention and the mechanisms are Notifications and Updates from Your Contacts. If Facebook doesn’t do it, then LinkedIn or Twitter will. So Facebook is like Microsoft - do whatever it takes to win.

If you disable types of notifications or otherwise remove sources of notifications on Facebook, and those are the notifications that you normally get, Facebook will start giving you new notifications for things that you weren't getting notifications for before. Things like "We have a new friend suggestion for you". Facebook is engineered to give you a steady stream of notifications, and as far as I know, there's no way to disable them completely, despite the slew of options Facebook gives you. Why do you think that is?

Notifications can be designed to be less addictive, but that's not what Facebook is doing.

Post reply on HN