3 ms·

Facebook is unprecendentedly widely used, global in reach. It has become for many an essential service. Facebook ( in many countries ) is a monopoly, unassail

Facebook is unprecendentedly widely used, global in reach. It has become for many an essential service. Facebook ( in many countries ) is a monopoly, unassailable competitively due to the size of its network. In days of yore, such a huge monopoly that is a utility would be broken up like Ma Bell in the 1980s or like rail, water and electricity in the UK were nationalised. Consumer data protections are currently woefully insufficient. I propose that such vast walled gardens should be curtailed for the public good. Thus Facebook should be just as viewable without signup, data exportable and deletable in whole or in part. Facebook should provide an API so competing and extending services can be freely built on it, restoring competition and innovation and niche utilities it brings. Consumers should be free to use whatever services and programs they choose on their own data whether stored on Facebooks servers or downloaded and held privately. Huge transnational data monopolies should not be walled gardens.

dotancohen 9y ago
Your suggestion amounts to using Facebook as an infrastructure, not directly using their user-facing services. The problem is that alternative (and open source) infrastructures have been developed, but nobody had the UI that Facebook has so people used Facebook anyway. Some like to argue that alternative infrastructures failed because "my friends weren't there so I couldn't use it" but that chicken-and-egg problem does not exist in small tight communities such as makers and startups. Yet, all those groups stayed on Facebook anyway even after trying Diaspora et. al. The common reasons were UI and features.
- deepnet 9y ago
  Yes but not quite. I suggested that the consumer is not forced to use Facebook's user-facing services but would have a choice. > all those groups stayed on Facebook anyway... I don't fully accept your assertion that all these groups stayed on Facebook, many exist elsewhere. You may well be right about some or most but I have not seen this surveyed anywhere. Do you have a citation ?
patrickk 9y ago
> Facebook should provide an API so competing and extending services can be freely built on it, restoring competition and innovation and niche utilities it brings. Facebook has zero incentive to do this voluntarily. It would be good for users (effectively turning social media into something like email) but terrible for Facebook's platform lock-in and all-important quarterly advertising revenue. As an example of them going in the opposite direction, they've shut down XMPP in the past to force users to use their messenger exclusively[1] rather than 3rd party chat applications. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266769
- Toenex 9y ago
  > Facebook has zero incentive to do this voluntarily I think the parent was suggesting some level of intervention and imposition. However, given the worldwide reach, which organisation could do this? I can't see how single nation government would be effective. I wonder if Facebook could begin by unlocking data a fixed period after it has been posted? Assuming the value to Facebook of a posting erodes over time.

dotancohen 9y ago

Your suggestion amounts to using Facebook as an infrastructure, not directly using their user-facing services. The problem is that alternative (and open source) infrastructures have been developed, but nobody had the UI that Facebook has so people used Facebook anyway. Some like to argue that alternative infrastructures failed because "my friends weren't there so I couldn't use it" but that chicken-and-egg problem does not exist in small tight communities such as makers and startups. Yet, all those groups stayed on Facebook anyway even after trying Diaspora et. al. The common reasons were UI and features.

deepnet 9y ago
Yes but not quite. I suggested that the consumer is not forced to use Facebook's user-facing services but would have a choice. > all those groups stayed on Facebook anyway... I don't fully accept your assertion that all these groups stayed on Facebook, many exist elsewhere. You may well be right about some or most but I have not seen this surveyed anywhere. Do you have a citation ?

patrickk 9y ago

> Facebook should provide an API so competing and extending services can be freely built on it, restoring competition and innovation and niche utilities it brings. Facebook has zero incentive to do this voluntarily. It would be good for users (effectively turning social media into something like email) but terrible for Facebook's platform lock-in and all-important quarterly advertising revenue. As an example of them going in the opposite direction, they've shut down XMPP in the past to force users to use their messenger exclusively[1] rather than 3rd party chat applications. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9266769

Toenex 9y ago
> Facebook has zero incentive to do this voluntarily I think the parent was suggesting some level of intervention and imposition. However, given the worldwide reach, which organisation could do this? I can't see how single nation government would be effective. I wonder if Facebook could begin by unlocking data a fixed period after it has been posted? Assuming the value to Facebook of a posting erodes over time.