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

21–30 of 266 posts

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

#21

Post by hnthrow0693 »

ams6110 wrote: post #10

Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.

I don’t think it is. First, lawmakers in several countries around the world were the first to propose these types of regulations, not Facebook. Second, Mark already acknowledged in the senate hearing that such regulations can hurt small businesses, so lawmakers need to be careful.

Hard problems require complex solutions. It’s not easy for small companies to get “a foot in the door” in the space or auto industries either. Content moderation is a hard and unsolved problem — so yes, companies with more resources will have a better chance of succeeding.

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

#22

Post by BluSyn »

Finally. I've been predicting this is exactly what FB would do eventually: ASK for regulation.

Facebook could do all these things in isolation, but generally speaking this could be really bad for long-term revenue. Essentially Facebook is stuck between a rock here; big moves will satisfy their user base, but annoy their large investors. On the other hand, doing nothing will harm users in the long run, but probably they could generate plenty of revenue in the process, so share holders would encourage this. Additionally if Facebook did this on their own, but other platforms are not subject to the same restrictions, they are at a huge competitive disadvantage.

I think this is the key value in broad government rules. Regulation here is both good for users and good for FB (and other platforms) in the long run. They can protect their users without having to explain to investors why they aren't just going straight for profits, because they will be bound by the rules established by regulation.

So in the end, FB should WANT regulation, because it's better for them in the long-run. I'm glad to see Mark appears to have finally realized this.

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

#23

Post by flafla2 »

ams6110 wrote: post #10

Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.

Can you suggest a better strategy at policing data misuse by social media companies, other than regulating social media explicitly (as this post calls for)? I agree that Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook is unshakably biased and shouldn't be writing the regulations themselves -- but nothing in the linked article seems to me to be written in bad faith. In fact, I see the same talking points (ex: bringing GDPR to the US, adopting a common standard for social media communication) all over HN.

The idea that small competitors should be able to launch with minimal capital, and the idea that social media vendors should protect users' data, are fundamentally in tension. It costs money to protect user privacy, full stop. Yeah, it's possible for a Facebook/Microsoft/Google/whoever to bend the regulations to widen their moat, but it's the job of the regulatory bodies to ensure that the regulations are fair.

The question shouldn't be "should we regulate social media?" The answer, IMO, is a resounding YES. The real question should be "who should be in charge of building those regulations?"

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

#25

Post by _rpd »

marcrosoft wrote: post #17

The four points being: * harmful content * election integrity * privacy * data portability I think Zuckerberg's intent is to dilute the real issue (privacy) with these other three points. FB has a bad record when it comes to privacy and they are actively taking measures against it. For example, they lobby against privacy laws [1]. They create shadow profiles and they make it difficult or impossible to delete your acc…

> data portability

Making the friend/family graph portable would allow others to compete with Facebook.

What's the state of the discussion on how to do this sensibly?

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

#26

Post by duxup »

ams6110 wrote: post #10

Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.

I was thinking it was that + some "I got mine with no rules, now nobody else should."

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

#27

Post by duxup »

flafla2 wrote: post #13

One of the most interesting parts of this column is that it is published in the Washington Post. You can't ignore the fact that this was likely run past Jeff Bezos, and Zuckerberg knows that. In almost all other circumstances, opinion columns from Mark were published on his public Facebook profile (example: "Building Global Community" [1]). The context of releasing this on WaPo is important as it represents an explic…

>You can't ignore the fact that this was likely run past Jeff Bezos

I'm not sure that's such a sure thing.

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

#28

Post by RandomInteger4 »

hnthrow0693 wrote: post #21
ams6110 wrote: post #10

Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.

I don’t think it is. First, lawmakers in several countries around the world were the first to propose these types of regulations, not Facebook. Second, Mark already acknowledged in the senate hearing that such regulations can hurt small businesses, so lawmakers need to be careful. Hard problems require complex solutions. It’s not easy for small companies to get “a foot in the door” in the space or auto industries eit…

Lobbyists are a thing. Before lawmakers come out publicly, there are already backroom talks and legal bribes being made.

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

#29

Post by croisillon »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #14
qnsi wrote: post #2

Facebook gets a lot of slack here on HN, and I share some critisism, but find this article by Zuckerberg is a step in right direction. One only hopes there is some free room for small companies from regulation, so this helpful regulation doesnt end as a moat for FB and others.

Did you mean to write 'Facebook gets a lot of flack '? That would seem to make more sense given the rest of the sentence.

i wondered about it too, i imagine it comes from "cut me some slack" = "cut the criticism", hence slack=criticism

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

#30

Post by mindslight »

Hahaha. I want to just blissfully assume this story was accidentally made live two days early. April Fools!

The Internet is doing just fine. It's these paperclip/engagement maximizing websites and crack-apps that are a problem. And the founder of one of the largest ones of these, after having built surveillance profiles on everybody, right as he's tightening the noose of censorship, is telling us that ambient "new rules" are needed now? Give me a break - Zuckerberg chose profitability over credibility a long time ago.

How about this - any rules that Zuckerberg thinks are "needed" can be simply tried by Faceboot itself. Then we can see if they actually fix the mess he's had a large part in creating, whether a different approach may be necessary, or whether the resulting environment ends up too draconian. This approach is blatantly obvious, but he's taken to lobbying rather than doing. So the actual question is what exactly is he trying to sell us on?

Post reply on HN