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

Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

doctorow.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#61

Post by sangnoir »

dcow wrote: post #15
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

> Regulating tech is a great idea (assuming the regulations are thoughtful and productive, of course), I’m not nearly as enthusiastic for these calls to bring heavy regulation on to the tech industry. Articles like this have a hypothetical ideal mental image of regulations that will punish only the bad guys while protecting themselves and the content they like. There’s also an implicit assumption that regulation will…

That box is already open. Respectfully your comment kinda reads like you assume tech is some new untouched frontier unexploited and ripe for the picking. We’re way past that and we must decide as a society how we want to navigate a world of global software services and immense data collection. Doctorow has always been against government central control of information. I suspect he’s against any overly large centraliz…

> Nobody is asking the govt to tell you how to run your business, they’re just asking that we make it illegal to abuse users in the way Facebook has by permabanning the developer of a genuinely socially good tool that is obviously not spam for the insane “it automates user interactions” blanket reason.

I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance, or some other phenomenon at play, but it seems to me like people in tech are unwilling to accept that the problems are systemic. Having a roster of mustache-twirling villains is convenient fiction, and having those companies punished/broken apart and calling it a day is doing something, but that doesn't prevent a different company from doing the same thing in a year.

There is a tension between wanting the government to do something - but not wanting it to do too much (lest it affects our stock options, or make our jobs harder? I don't know)

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#63

Post by dcow »

sangnoir wrote: post #61
dcow wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That box is already open. Respectfully your comment kinda reads like you assume tech is some new untouched frontier unexploited and ripe for the picking. We’re way past that and we must decide as a society how we want to navigate a world of global software services and immense data collection. Doctorow has always been against government central control of information. I suspect he’s against any overly large centraliz…

> Nobody is asking the govt to tell you how to run your business, they’re just asking that we make it illegal to abuse users in the way Facebook has by permabanning the developer of a genuinely socially good tool that is obviously not spam for the insane “it automates user interactions” blanket reason. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance, or some other phenomenon at play, but it seems to me like people in tech…

I mean I think the “I’m a private company I am not bound by tue constitution” is a little dated. Companies effectively run the world and practically have a lot of power over individuals. There is essentially zero difference between a large company impinging on shared liberties and the government. Maybe we should start by applying a broader set of protections to citizens in order to start addressing the systemic issues?

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#64

Post by mtwittman »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #47

I find it ironic that reading this article requires logging in or using the app, presumably so you can be more accurately tracked.

This article is not an exclusive (but some on medium are), so here's the canonical non-paywalled version:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/08/unfollow-everything/#shut...

Cory seems to be up front about the conditions of his various forms of publishing:

How to get Pluralistic:[0]

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/web/accounts/303320

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

[0] https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/05/clarkes-third-law/

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#65

Post by sangnoir »

dcow wrote: post #63
sangnoir wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is asking the govt to tell you how to run your business, they’re just asking that we make it illegal to abuse users in the way Facebook has by permabanning the developer of a genuinely socially good tool that is obviously not spam for the insane “it automates user interactions” blanket reason. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance, or some other phenomenon at play, but it seems to me like people in tech…

I mean I think the “I’m a private company I am not bound by tue constitution” is a little dated. Companies effectively run the world and practically have a lot of power over individuals. There is essentially zero difference between a large company impinging on shared liberties and the government. Maybe we should start by applying a broader set of protections to citizens in order to start addressing the systemic issue…

We're in agreement - and the protections have to be broad indeed to bar specific activities, regardless of which company partake in them (current, or future). Targeting individual companies will lead to an endless game of snail-paced whack-a-mole

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#66

Post by epgui »

dcow wrote: post #59
sershe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gp does say users- slash -customers, usually meaning "or". There were social media platforms before them that lost despite the network effects, and there are platforms that have appeared after them that gained a ton of users despite the lock-in (some of which they have bought, which is in my view the only thing about them that should be amenable to regulation). EDIT: based on TFA and only tangentially relevant to…

It is illegal in most of the rest of the world to advertise/market prescription drugs specifically because it causes undesirable outcomes where patients are telling their doctors what to prescribe, which is backwards. And drugs still exist in those countries. I don’t think anybody is saying “make Facebook illegal”. The ask is to deeply explore our understanding of ad-based social media and consider whether such machi…

> We clamped down on the Tobacco industry and it wasn't just holier than thou zealots having a field day as fun ruiners.

Well-said! There's a big difference between enacting laws that protect vulnerable groups (eg.: smokers / the public) from powerful influences (eg.: Tobacco companies / propaganda), and enacting laws meant to impose standards of "moral purity". A very big difference.

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#67

Post by sershe »

dcow wrote: post #59
sershe wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gp does say users- slash -customers, usually meaning "or". There were social media platforms before them that lost despite the network effects, and there are platforms that have appeared after them that gained a ton of users despite the lock-in (some of which they have bought, which is in my view the only thing about them that should be amenable to regulation). EDIT: based on TFA and only tangentially relevant to…

It is illegal in most of the rest of the world to advertise/market prescription drugs specifically because it causes undesirable outcomes where patients are telling their doctors what to prescribe, which is backwards. And drugs still exist in those countries. I don’t think anybody is saying “make Facebook illegal”. The ask is to deeply explore our understanding of ad-based social media and consider whether such machi…

I think I understand what you are trying to say, however...

> I don’t think anybody is saying “make Facebook illegal” ... consider whether such machines have any place in a healthy society.

That sounds exactly like a moral crusade. You don't want to make it illegal, but would like to consider if it has "any place", and also someone will have to define "healthy society". If you asked people in many places and times (if not most), they'd tell you homosexuality is an abomination that has no place in a "healthy society". Even at present, some people literally treat it as a disease in need of a cure.

And yes, I think prescription drugs should not be a thing (well, prescriptions are fine but if I want to buy metformin because I think I'm smarter than everyone else I should be able to do it and prove myself right (or wrong).

Tobacco is a perfect example for me personally, because I dislike it, so I feel good about forcing everyone to not smoke. On the other hand, it hurts almost entirely the user, so the only justifiable restrictions would be the ones where the user is imposing costs on others, e.g. charging them more for healthcare... I like the advertising bans, but I would have also liked e.g. never having children around, via e.g. banning them from all restaurants and gyms. Doesn't make it justified.

Re: Facebook shouldn’t be in charge of how you use Facebook

#68

Post by sershe »

epgui wrote: post #66
dcow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is illegal in most of the rest of the world to advertise/market prescription drugs specifically because it causes undesirable outcomes where patients are telling their doctors what to prescribe, which is backwards. And drugs still exist in those countries. I don’t think anybody is saying “make Facebook illegal”. The ask is to deeply explore our understanding of ad-based social media and consider whether such machi…

> We clamped down on the Tobacco industry and it wasn't just holier than thou zealots having a field day as fun ruiners. Well-said! There's a big difference between enacting laws that protect vulnerable groups (eg.: smokers / the public) from powerful influences (eg.: Tobacco companies / propaganda), and enacting laws meant to impose standards of "moral purity". A very big difference.

Where do you draw a boundary? What you're saying is "you are doing a thing that is bad for you, /I/ know better what /you/ should be doing". You can talk about externalities, but unless it's something that is very narrow and direct, e.g. "you ruin your health via smoking so you get charged extra for certain healthcare services", it becomes a slippery slope. "Healthy society" type stuff is especially suspect, stuff like "undermining society/government/cohesion" has been used by authoritarians for the vaguest of reasons.
Post reply on HN