Facebook asks for a moat of regulations it already meets • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by Kiro » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 12:07 PM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #136

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…

It might sound crazy but the govt DID this for cigarettes. Have you read the warning on cigarettes? I mean just look at the suggested box design here: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-st... I mean really look at that, and fully take in the notion that our government required that. That, that takes balls.

What are you talking about? That (and way more explicit) has been standard in most western countries for decades. The US is just slow to adapt modern practices. No balls involved there.

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

#262

Post by SuoDuanDao » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

authoritarian wrote: post #244

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That didn't really work all that well for cigarettes.

Except it did.... smoking is at a record low

To what degree do you think warning labels played a role in that?

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

#263

Post by DanielBMarkham » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #116

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…

> 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, Or maybe, alternate world view, it does not even matter as much as you think it does.

It doesn't really matter. At scale, 3% is huge.

We keep having these discussions about the impact of social media as if the relationship was directly causal, ie Zuck pushes a button and robot people do his bidding. Wish the problem were so easy. It's at scale, dealing with fractions of percentages over thousands of randomly subsegmented markets, nobody knows what the hell is going on. It's incomprehensible by any human.

What we know is that people pay billions of dollars to advertise there. We know that most of the world's population (!) has signed up. We know that people who quit feel better. We can observe people doing and saying things with other people at a scale never seen before. In fact, that's one of the selling points. We know that more and more studies are showing addictive and maladaptive behavior from people who spend a lot of time there.

We're not trying to convict FB in a court of law or inventing some new science. The preponderance of all the available evidence says that there's a major social change at work worldwide that has at least some deleterious effects. Works for me. Any small number times a billion is a big number. That's the entire business model of social media. You logically can't deny the way social media works in order to make a defense of social media.

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

#264

Post by sprafa » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

justapassenger wrote: post #218

sprafa wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very simple solution to Facebook - demand that they offer compatibility through an API so that other products can offer News Feed products that are seamlessly integrated with the FB Friends. Same as having a universal messaging protocol that's compatible with WhatsApp, and an Instagram API that also allows for compatibility with competitive photo feed products. Basically - open up the social graph and allo…

> There is a very simple solution to Facebook - demand that they offer compatibility through an API so that other products can offer News Feed products that are seamlessly integrated with the FB Friends. Allowing tons of third parties to access all your data. That’s for sure going to solve all the problems (and Facebook had same idea few years ago, that brought you Cambridge Analytica scandal)

No that’s not true at all but sure.

The problem with Analytica is it was done without your knowledge as a user. If you had volunteered to share tour data with CA how is that is that different from sharing it with Google or Instagram or any other service? We pick services to use in exchange for data everyday.

Why is it different if Facebook has access to your data from any other service? You just pick one.

Anyway this is the only solution and it will eventually be implemented. Either that or the Warren plan.

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

#265

Post by ekianjo » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

authoritarian wrote: post #246

ekianjo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, Or maybe, alternate world view, it does not even matter as much as you think it does.

People dying of starvation and homelessness doesn't matter to many people but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact on society or shouldn't be solved

How is that comment related To Facebook ?

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

#266

Post by ekianjo » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 3:56 AM UTC

inerte wrote: post #168

_red wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is usually not the same people who stay at the bottom for 40 years so this kind of comment is really only useful to push political agendas rather than any kind of reality check.

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

#267

Post by ekianjo » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 3:58 AM UTC

take_a_breath wrote: post #224

ch4s3 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I dislike FB I think this gives their ad platform far too much credit. How do you go about connecting ads viewed to votes, or even poling data? Of those views how many users engaged with the content?

Some people are obviously making a connection between the two or else there wouldn't be political spending on Facebook.

Political spending happens anyway regardless whether or not Facebook exists. now it is just one more channel to use to reach people, among dozens of others.

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

#268

Post by ekianjo » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

take_a_breath wrote: post #256

ch4s3 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaigns and PACs spend money on all kinds of useless things. The burden of proof is on the people claiming that Facebook ads are uniquely malevolent and effective. This is also not to mention that the money spent on Facebook pales in comparison to other channels. From my perspective, it has all of the hallmarks of a moral panic, right down to the calls to "think of the children."

==Campaigns and PACs spend money on all kinds of useless things.== Do you have a citation for this? It seems like a failure in the free market if organizations spend $55 billion [1] on Facebook advertisements with no benefit. ==From my perspective, it has all of the hallmarks of a moral panic, right down to the calls to "think of the children."== What data is that perspective based on or is it just your gut feeling (…

First, you dont know if your investment is good until the election actually happens since polls are massively unreliable, so the opportunity to adjust spending is limited.

Second, campaigns are not driven like companies.

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

#269

Post by macspoofing » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 11:25 AM UTC

riffic wrote: post #231

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's really possible to launch new decentralized protocols anymore, and get any kind of mainstream traction. We have HTTP and email basically by historical accident. Even RSS was shown to really just be an implementation detail of Google Reader, and there wasn't enough of an organic ecosystem outside of that for it to survive.

the protocol has been launched already. it's only a matter of time before the network effect kicks in. I would assume that once a major media company or government organization realizes they can adopt an implementation of the existing protocol this will move that network a bit closer to the tipping point.

>it's only a matter of time before the network effect kicks in.

Can you quantify that? XMPP has been around forever and the biggest chat messengers are proprietary. IRC has been around forever, but Slack and Teams are what's actually being used.

What is the evidence that an open standard for social use-cases can actually drive use?

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

#270

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

raziel2p wrote: post #135

josephg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis are you claiming that that most teams at FB are optimising the product for well being as opposed to ‘engagement’ (addiction)? Do you have first hand knowledge? Do you know the people involved? Do you have citations? I stopped using FB a few years ago after I had an argument with a friend on the platform. The algorithm decided to keep showing us one anothers’ content - I assume so we would both write mor…

If facebook only shows content you agree with, it's creating social bubbles where everyone is cheering each other on and criticism is not allowed, and you end up with anti-vax groups. And if facebook emphasizes content you engage with (albeit negatively), you end up with anecdotes like yours. Facebook is a tool, use it as such rather than being entitled and feeling disempowered. You can hide people from your timeline…

> If facebook only shows content you agree with, it's creating social bubbles where everyone is cheering each other on and criticism is not allowed, and you end up with anti-vax groups.

Just because the solution would be hard or complex doesn't mean FB gets to continue its problematic behaviour.

> Facebook is a tool, use it as such

It is not. It is a corporation and you definitely don't get to use it like a tool.

At its most charitable, it is a tool like a beehive is a tool to make honey. Which are less dangerous than Facebook and still require protective gear to operate.