Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe gambling is a better analog. Last time I checked gambling was pretty tightly regulated.
Not a better analog at all.
The reward system is quite similar, in my opinion.
Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
421–430 of 734 posts
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There should be no question, that what FB is doing here, while not illegal, is highly dubious ethically. Why, what exactly are they doing that is ethically dubious? So far based on what I have read of this whistleblower's revelations, I do not have a problem with Facebook doing any of it.
Really? You don’t have a problem with an app that causes 1% of teens that use it to develop suicidal thoughts? By the way, according to the leaked study these teens directly attributed their suicidal ideation to Instagram.
Are you coming after my collection of Smiths CDs?
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#423I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
One fairly common pattern seen is that companies develop in a nascent space where there were few rules and were therefore able to basically outrun regulation/ the law that moves very slowly. When that regulation eventually comes it ends up solidifying the monopolistic advantage by essentially creating a moat and closing the door on practices that helped create such growth in the first place. I think when stakes are that high, companies are generally rewarded and incentivized to be unscrupulous rather than virtuous, especially when the unscrupulous actors just become wealthy enough to buy out the virtuous ones.
I wouldn't be surprised if we are currently in the middle of a version of this regarding social media and how privacy of personal information is handled right now.
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#424I think FB is having its MySpace moment.
From what I remember, right around the time FB was picking up, MySpace was facing a lot of scrutiny especially around predators preying on children, which was one of the main, if not the only, reason for MySpace's downfall.
The time is ripe for a competitor to enter this space.
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sin taxes How about we don't let the state decide what I get to do with my body (and mind)?
So you get to ignore all the responsibilities that come with your rights so you get to clog up our hospitals with your bad decisions? How about you take full responsibility: you get to not put whatever in your body, and you agree never to take an ambulance ride or be treated by a hospital. Don't want the vaccine? That's fine, it's your right. But now when you can't breathe, nobody coming to help.
> So you get to ignore all the responsibilities that come with your rights so
Absolutely not. I know lots of people that manage to drink alcohol responsibly. They never drink and drive, don't regularly over indulge and it makes their and their peers lives _better_.
What negative externality are they paying for with alcohol taxes?
> How about you take full responsibility: you get to not put whatever in your body, and you agree never to take an ambulance ride or be treated by a hospital.
> Don't want the vaccine? That's fine, it's your right. But now when you can't breathe, nobody coming to help.
If I pay for health insurance, I'm already taxing myself in this instance. It would be perfectly reasonable for a health insurance company to offer incentives for people to be vaccinated just like they offer incentives to non-smokers.
If the government wants to start providing that healthcare, then they can have a say in the cost of poor health decisions.
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with holding all media accountable. But the problem with what you say is that for millions and millions 'news' is actually BS opinion shows. On both sides but from my perspective Fox & Murdoch's empire abroad has done far more harm than say Maddow preaching whatever riles that audience up. The actual press, WaPo, NyTimes (which does great docs, so does Vice imho) have rigid editorial process. Yet I still on H…
I've found this site to be pretty fair when rating media bias. It lists all the three sites as having liberal bias. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ Also I want to point out Vice gave a known murderer a national interview for him to push his fake narrative. Meanwhile there was an actual video and pictures of the killing that completely blew away any notion this was anything other that a murder. Michael Reinoehl hide b…
New York Times is listed as center-left and high factual though. Orbiting the center and factual is really about as good as you’re going to get for less biased reporting. (Ignoring how even that is reductive, and that the NYT definitely has its own set of biases that don’t neatly fit on the left-right spectrum.)
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the definition of this? I listen to a podcast on football. Are they allowed to run ads that are about sports betting and NFL tickets? That is personalized to the group. Is Facebook allowed to run ads for sports betting to all people who are fans of a professional team on their site? Is Facebook not allowed to run me ads for local restaurants any more?
This could be done. The ads on a football podcast could be based on who their broader audience is, not based on a specific user. > Is Facebook not allowed to run me ads for local restaurants any more? Nope.
the difference between a cohort that listens to a football podcast and lives in a metro doesn’t seem obvious to me.
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. What you are saying is literally the opposite of hundreds of years of the rule of law. If FB did break the law as written, then prosecute them for that in a fair trial by a jury of their peers, but…
The point they’re making is you don’t prosecute Facebook for something that we think is unjust but is not yet illegal. You make it illegal, and then after that point if anyone continues with the now illegal course of action then you prosecute them. Prosecuting someone for something that wasn’t illegal when they did it would of course be wrong.
If that was what the OP had said, I would agree, but I don't interpret that as being what they actually said (although I may have misinterpreted):
"However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal" (emphasis added)
I interpret this as saying that they believe retroactively applying enforcement would be moral, just, and legal.
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#429I think a lot of people are choosing to ignore that a lot of companies have done things in the past that were not illegal at the time of action. However, those actions were later decided to be made illegal because the behavior was deemed to be antithetical to our values. For example, Standard Oil did not break any laws in its ruthless consolidation of the nascent oil industry. In fact, it exploited the law to allow i…
Your point is a good one, but we should be careful not to equate [edit: completely] Facebook's actions with those of Standard Oil.
If we say that the Sherman Antitrust Act was only necessary because of unethical behavior on the part of players like Standard Oil, we cannot say the same in this situation.
If you consider Facebook's behavior unethical, how do you view the behavior of the millions of people who fund them and provide them such market power? There are many many alternatives to Facebook. But non-Facebook parties routinely force people to Facebook if they want to be involved in an event or receive a notification or provide feedback.
If you would shame Facebook for their behavior, you should also shame others for using Facebook. Users enable Facebook's behavior.
Conversely, if you hold Facebook users harmless, it is harder to sympathize with complaints about Facebook's behavior.
Their are clear parallels between Facebook and Standard Oil. But it is useful to note where there are differences, too.
Re: Facebook Whistleblower Leaks Thousands of Pages of Incriminating Internal Docs
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really appreciate this point. I often see it as written rules (laws) and unwritten rules (ethics). If something breaks the unwritten rules we have about how people are supposed to interact with each other, then we often codify that rule into law. Many people will say "I didn't break the law" but where many people would say that person did break an unwritten law. > There should be no question, that what FB is doing…
AFAIK SEC laws and regulations about misrepresentation are only sporadically enforced to encourage compliance by example. Look at what Musk and his companies have gotten away with. Of course, I am all for these disclosures, which of course FB will pay their way out of without admitting wrongdoing. Because corporations manage our government, not the other way around.
SEC cases are hard to put together, but the the SEC is far from toothless. Cf. [1].
Lying to Congress is another matter: perjury convictions are pretty rare.
[1]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=933333