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

Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#151

Post by Spooky23 »

fromMars wrote: post #56
morley wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think HN in particular is too focused on "loss of privacy" as an issue. It seems to me that loss of privacy, while concerning, hasn't caused a fraction of the tangible, measurable problems in the west that misinformation and echo chambers have caused. Loss of privacy hasn't caused anti-immigrant fear-mongering, or conspiracy theorists harassing school shooting victims, or people not vaccinating their children. In a…

I agree. I am not sure that any substantial "loss of privacy" has even occurred. Just to posit an example, Banks and Credit Bureaus have long tracked extensive information about us including where we have lived, worked, and what we have purchased. Should we be able to have our credit history erased from Credit Bureau and Banks in the name of privacy?

Credit reports are nothing. Insurance companies can identify things like whether you watch porn, gamble online or go to a gym.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#152

Post by ourmandave »

Apropos to nothing, here's a paper from 2005 about Big Tobacco wanting the government to regulate it, titled:

Understanding Philip Morris’s pursuit of US government regulation of tobacco

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/3/193.short

Cause hey, if you're going to get regulated, you might as well write the rules yourself.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#153

Post by SllX »

int_19h wrote: post #65
SllX wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flack or slack? They don’t get much slack ‘round these parts and in fact get lots of flack. I just checked the article. Proposal #1 is primarily there to limit Facebook’s liability. That said, it is incompatible with the First Amendment. A government or government sponsored regulatory body deciding what is socially harmful speech is precisely what the First Amendment guards against . You would have to go with a corpo…

> A government or government sponsored regulatory body deciding what is socially harmful speech is precisely what the First Amendment guards against. You would have to go with a corporate governed body on a corporate volunteer basis for it to be a meaningful proposal. Essentially, Facebook can ban le Nazis, but the US Government can’t. We had something like that already, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_b…

Key word: had.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#155

Post by syshum »

aestetix wrote: post #40

"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...

I agree, I question the people that have only 2 identities, people need 4 or 5 these days

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#156

Post by bunderbunder »

quadrangle wrote: post #125
bitxbit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sol…

As Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.

> Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly

There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#157

Post by syshum »

ardy42 wrote: post #139
doctorcroc wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another point to consider is that the more the internet is regulated, the more difficult it is for new entrants to compete , as they have to comply first with existing laws. This is an easy way for incumbents to protect themselves from potentially swift-footed competitors.

> Another point to consider is that the more the internet is regulated, the more difficult it is for new entrants to compete , as they have to comply first with existing laws. This is an easy way for incumbents to protect themselves from potentially swift-footed competitors. Perhaps the regulations could be written to be more onerous for the incumbents to implement? E.g. a new entrant below a certain size is allowed…

That is generally how they are written it is false way to claim you are pro small business by exempting small business from the regulation

All that does however is ensure the competition will ALWAYS be small.

where I am There are alot of employment regulations that kick in when you hire your 51st employee, under 50 and you are exempt, so guess what there are CRAP ton of businesses that can not expand beyond the 50 employee mark, they would love to higher more people but the burdens placed on them once they did would likely cause huge amounts of harm to the business, increase costs and revenue where they would no longer be able to afford that new employee.... Generally it makes is hard for a business to go from 50 to about 75 or 100 employees where the extra burdens no longer matter. So unless a business can double in size it is hard for those business to grow, they end up stagnate and often fail as a result

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#158

Post by raymondgh »

Zuck still wants platforms to control the judgement and censorship of content. I agree this content should be the responsibility and liability of every so-called “platform” that wants to profit off our communication as people — but an ideal platform should NOT be censored at the network level. I want to live in a world where Facebook the company can’t be blamed for people voting one way or another, and I think this is most possible in a world where our most popular communication platform is not a for-profit corporation. Content consumers should have full control over self-censorship and there should be no other interference (parents would control what children access). Maybe Mastodon is taking us in the right direction. We need the tools and literacy discover, judge, and trust content ourselves. Taking that responsibility away from individuals also takes that power away from us. Zuck is right that we need new rules — rules that prevent orgs like Facebook from taking over the internet, not rules that entrench Facebook as our manager of internet content.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

#160

Post by pushtheenvelope »

bunderbunder wrote: post #156
quadrangle wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.

> Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.

What does Cambridge Analytica prove about FB the company?

An academic from Cambridge made an app on the FB platform. That gave him access to data which he then sold for commercial purposes. When FB found out, they sent a legal notice to delete this data and cease using it.

Post reply on HN