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

As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 129 posts

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#71

Post by judge2020 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69
rPlayer6554 wrote: post #51

Simple: Facebook will be stopped when people decide to stop using it or reduce their time on the platform. All the information about their privacy abuses are quite public and people still choose to use the product. I am well aware and I use that information to use it in an informed way (limited usage only on desktop, Firefox container, and more). Yes yes, inside the HN bubble it does seem to be popular. But in the no…

> the information about their privacy abuses are quite public and people still choose to use the product I don't. I'm still tracked. Also negatively affected by its effects. People are free to smoke cigarettes, but we will pass measures to limit its damage, particularly to innocent bystanders.

And yet second-hand smoking is only 100% preventable if you isolate yourself from any known smokers. That's why people who care will use a modern tracker blocker and/or firefox containers.

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#72

Post by pixelgeek »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67
pixelgeek wrote: post #22

What can be done to rein in Facebook? Nothing. Either shut it down or live with the impact but the time to 'do something' about Facebook was a long time ago. Before legislators in the US let it become this surveillance behemoth. Before it became a massive ad network. Reining it in also presumes that legislative methods will work. I think it is already clear that they don't. Shut it down.

> Reining it in also presumes that legislative methods will work. I think it is already clear that they don't. How is it clear? What legislation has been attempted? The simplest legislation--I could fit it on a page--would be to ban M&A by social media companies over a certain size and force break-ups of past mergers that would have violated that restriction had it been in place since, I don't know, February 4, 2004.

They are still operating under an FTC order that they effectively ignore.

They were fined and they deliberately took a bigger fine to protect their CEO.

They ignored calls for their CEO to appear before parliament in the UK and Canada. Ignored.

I am not fully aware of the state of legislative action in the UK from the Cambridge/Brexit issue but that hasn't gone anywhere.

They are far too large to be legislated. They have too much money to fine. What possible options other than shutting the company down exist that Facebook wouldn't either pay with their 'spare change' fund or bury with lobbyists?

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#73

Post by JumpCrisscross »

cletus wrote: post #14

Calls for breaking up companies make great headlines for politicians but let's look at the history and why this was necessary as a solution to antitrust. The textbook case for the Sherman Act was Standard Oil. Built up by Rockefeller in the late 19th century, Standard Oil came to effectively control the extraction, refining, distribution and sale of kerosene (in particular). This is when oil pipelines began, interest…

> Standard Oil split into a bunch of companies, many of which still exist today (eg Chevron, Exxon-Mobil). This break up actually made Rockefeller (even more) fantastically wealthy.

This looks like an argument for antitrust. The component companies' political influence was reduced. Consumers saw better prices [1]. And apparently, shareholders also won.

[1] David I. Rosenbaum, Market Dominance: How Firms Gain, Hold, or Lose it and the Impact on Economic Performance

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#74

Post by [deleted] »

judge2020 wrote: post #71
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the information about their privacy abuses are quite public and people still choose to use the product I don't. I'm still tracked. Also negatively affected by its effects. People are free to smoke cigarettes, but we will pass measures to limit its damage, particularly to innocent bystanders.

And yet second-hand smoking is only 100% preventable if you isolate yourself from any known smokers. That's why people who care will use a modern tracker blocker and/or firefox containers.

[deleted]

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

pixelgeek wrote: post #72
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reining it in also presumes that legislative methods will work. I think it is already clear that they don't. How is it clear? What legislation has been attempted? The simplest legislation--I could fit it on a page--would be to ban M&A by social media companies over a certain size and force break-ups of past mergers that would have violated that restriction had it been in place since, I don't know, February 4, 2004.

They are still operating under an FTC order that they effectively ignore. They were fined and they deliberately took a bigger fine to protect their CEO. They ignored calls for their CEO to appear before parliament in the UK and Canada. Ignored. I am not fully aware of the state of legislative action in the UK from the Cambridge/Brexit issue but that hasn't gone anywhere. They are far too large to be legislated. They…

> too large to be legislated

You haven't cited any legislation.

The FTC is not powerful enough to regulate Facebook; the U.K. and Canada were snubbed by them--agreed. But none of that is legislation.

(To be clear, Facebook is more powerful than some legislatures. But not the Congress. Not by a long shot.)

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#76

Post by newswasboring »

user3939382 wrote: post #33
jorgesborges wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive, has argued that only companies as large as Facebook have the resources to fight misinformation, election meddling and harmful content. Look, they’re not a propaganda machine! I’m so thankful we have them to “fight” against “misinformation”. I read that and my blood began to boil. Evil is the perfect description of such disgusting, deceitful pandering.

We should stop using the term misinformation and call it untruth. This deobfuscates what’s really happening, which is that: Extreme wealth and power has caused some self-appointed Deciders of Truth to band together and decide that anyone who does not pledge allegiance to anything they decide is true will be cast out of society as much as practically possible. I remember reading Plato’s The Republic when I was young a…

> We should stop using the term misinformation and call it untruth

Or just call it what it is. Lies.

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CosmicShadow wrote: post #65
stri8ted wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree. My point is more broadly about the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem.

Yeah, but what other social media exists beyond Twitter?

> what other social media exists beyond Twitter?

Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit and Pinterest each have more MAUs than Twitter [1].

[1] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-soc...

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#78

Post by newswasboring »

MadeThisToReply wrote: post #43
jorgesborges wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive, has argued that only companies as large as Facebook have the resources to fight misinformation, election meddling and harmful content. Look, they’re not a propaganda machine! I’m so thankful we have them to “fight” against “misinformation”. I read that and my blood began to boil. Evil is the perfect description of such disgusting, deceitful pandering.

Facebook thinks it's the company to "fight election meddling"? Is this the same Facebook that meddled in the 2020 US presidential election by suppressing the distribution of a factual news story because the facts were embarrassing to the Biden campaign? What next, is Bill Cosby going to tell us that he's an activist for women's rights?

Can you mention which story are you calling about?

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#79

Post by JumpCrisscross »

stri8ted wrote: post #57
dylan604 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an acceptable view point. However, that doesn't mean FB should not be punished into oblivion. They don't get a free pass just because "someone else would have done it if we didn't" is not an acceptable defense.

I don't disagree. My point is more broadly about the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem.

> the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem

Facebook is the biggest. And we have evidence of the harm it, specifically, causes, in a way we don't for its competitors. They also have a spectacular track record of lying and lawbreaking.

Re: As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?

#80

Post by ferdowsi »

judge2020 wrote: post #71
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the information about their privacy abuses are quite public and people still choose to use the product I don't. I'm still tracked. Also negatively affected by its effects. People are free to smoke cigarettes, but we will pass measures to limit its damage, particularly to innocent bystanders.

And yet second-hand smoking is only 100% preventable if you isolate yourself from any known smokers. That's why people who care will use a modern tracker blocker and/or firefox containers.

Ad-ops is way ahead of you. Facebook and other corporate surveillers will track you on the backend, like whenever you make a purchase or some other transaction on an unassociated site. Your client-side protections won't save you.
Post reply on HN