Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
techcrunch.com
Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#2It's well known at this point that regulations tend to protect incumbents in many industries by making it more expensive for startups to compete.
Industry support for regulations can seem counter-intuitive -- why would a company want to increase its cost of doing business? But it makes sense when you consider that the costs are an anti-competitive weapon. One example is when Philip Morris supported FDA regulations of cigarettes: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2002/07/smok...
So, we should be very careful about how we regulate companies' use of customer data, lest we make it even more difficult for Facebook's competitors.
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#3https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-fosta-will-get-hol...
"The not-so-secret goal of SESTA and FOSTA is made even more clear in a letter from Oracle. “Any start-up has access to low cost and virtually unlimited computing power and to advanced analytics, artificial intelligence and filtering software,” wrote Oracle Senior VP Kenneth Glueck. In his view, Internet companies shouldn’t “blindly run platforms with no control of the content.”
That comment helps explain why we’re seeing support for FOSTA and SESTA from odd corners of the economy: some companies will prosper if online speech is subject to tight control. An Internet that’s policed by “copyright bots” is what major film and record studios have advocated for more than a decade now. Algorithms and artificial intelligence have made major advances in recent years, and some content companies have used those advances as part of a push for mandatory, proactive filters. That’s what they mean by phrases like “notice-and-stay-down,” and that’s what messages like the Oracle letter are really all about."
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#4https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-fosta-will-get-hol... "The not-so-secret goal of SESTA and FOSTA is made even more clear in a letter from Oracle. “Any start-up has access to low cost and virtually unlimited computing power and to advanced analytics, artificial intelligence and filtering software,” wrote Oracle Senior VP Kenneth Glueck. In his view, Internet companies shouldn’t “blindly run platforms with no…
People who think like this should be VP of anything, I’m not surprised he’s at Oracle.
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#5I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies
1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram.
2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow.
3. Once your revenue on ad supported services that are free to end users exceed y million USD, you must make easily available every single usage of the end user's data. Also, user must have right to prohibit any specific type of use of user's data.
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#6In investment parlance the government would build them a moat. Companies with capital to maintain compliance will have a head start on any startup looking to unseat them. Should this come, it will be a lot harder to start a startup.
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#7privacy regulations = Facebook loses.
compliance regulations = Facebook wins.
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#8Privacy regulations have value independent of its effects on competition. Making a Rube Goldberg argument about how it might end up benefiting Facebook ignores that fact.
The solution to market dominance is antitrust enforcement.
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#9I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram. 2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user…
On points 2 and 3, why limit this to companies with revenue exceeding x or y million USD?
Re: Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it
#10I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies 1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp & Instagram. 2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user…
#3 sounds like a cool idea, I think knowing how your data is being used is important and allows users to make more informed decisions about how they give their data away.
I think #2 is over-regulation, given #3 users can decide if they want to support the product or not by using it.
Also, if you deactivate your account companies should no longer be able to use your data.