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

171–180 of 275 posts

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

#171

Post by ViViDboarder »

Tyr42 wrote: post #162
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?

No. Other platforms already have open APIs, Facebook is the one that has no interoperability. It would make it easier for a Diaspora server to slurp data from Facebook.

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

#172

Post by ViViDboarder »

izacus wrote: post #80
optimiz3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. You can still have stuff penalties for leaking PII.

No false dichotomy there - stiff penalties for leaking PII IS the regulation.

Not the one Facebook is proposing.

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

#173

Post by celdon25 »

scarface74 wrote: post #159
ethbro wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition, everyone who does illegal drugs is somewhat flexible with regards to suggestions from authority. One of the core propositions of cigarettes was always that they were legal. They catered to both the rule breaker and (substantially bigger) rule follower markets. So it seems apples and oranges with regards to imagery / warning effectiveness due to the only partially overlapping consumers.

Did prohibition make a difference in alcohol consumption? I can’t think of anyone who has ever said - “I really want to smoke weed. But it’s illegal.”

Yes it did[1]. And yes, those people exist.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

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

#174

Post by throwaway8291 »

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…

Investors care about making money, period. Whether you burn coal until the planet is inhabitable or John Doe data is sold and packaged up for the next couple of decades without him knowing does not matter at all.

It's a strange world for sure, and one that I am virtually certain will come to a crashing halt in this century.

Nobody is required to buy facebook stocks. If you do not want this company to continue it's operations, just get rid of it (if you owned it in the first place).

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

#175

Post by dwild »

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?

I don't know if it apply to the whole country or only my province (Quebec) but since then we also added that they can't be marketed at all. That include not being visible in a convenience store. I don't know how effective the pictures were, but not being visible that must have affected the statistics too.

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

#176

Post by gtfratteus »

optimiz3 wrote: post #4

Depending on the regulation, IMO a sensible middle ground is to phase in regulations based on company size as measured by revenue and/or employee count. This avoids crushing upstarts while regulating companies large enough to matter.

If you do that, you might as well just admit that the regulations aren't actually intended to protect consumers.

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

#177

Post by dwild »

lordfoom wrote: post #40
RealityVoid wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I estimate about the same impact of this as cigarette pack warning.

So quite a lot?

Were they? I have seen so many people keep smoking even though the packaging in Canada have some gruesome pictures. The reduction I seen was mostly based on age, it was just no longer "cool" to smoke, it was simply a change of culture. More often than not right now, when I see younger people smoking, they are mostly from France, where the smoking culture is different, so that kind of confirm this.

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

#178

Post by andai »

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…

Here I would distinguish between "bad reputation for protecting your data" and "literally dies if they don't sell it constantly".

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

#179

Post by scarface74 »

celdon25 wrote: post #173
scarface74 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did prohibition make a difference in alcohol consumption? I can’t think of anyone who has ever said - “I really want to smoke weed. But it’s illegal.”

Yes it did[1]. And yes, those people exist. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/

and It also led to other consequences according to most studies.

https://priceonomics.com/did-prohibition-reduce-drinking/

-increase in organized crime

- increase in incarceration rates.

But guess who gets incarcerated more because of the “war on drugs” and guess what happens when it starts affecting the suburbs? It’s then treated like “a disease”.

Tell me again why I want to give the government more power?

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

#180

Post by zentiggr »

mgraczyk wrote: post #47
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…

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…

If "well being" is a core metric for "most teams" why do we have investigative exposes of the horrible conditions content moderators are forced into?

If well being were truly important, those moderators would be treated like valuable core metric maintainers, not barely paid, badly unsupported afterthoughts.

And advertising performance and monetization would take a back seat as well, which is obviously not the case.

Step out of your prior employee shell, and look at the whole picture of FB's interaction with its users. Not a net positive, and as others have said, no one but themselves (Zuck?) to blame.

Post reply on HN