3 ms·

Oh that's easy. Buy enough shares to have operational control of facebook and you can do whatever you want with it. Otherwise, until facebook cannot make money

Oh that's easy. Buy enough shares to have operational control of facebook and you can do whatever you want with it. Otherwise, until facebook cannot make money doing what it is doing it will continue to do what it is doing. No politico/journalista whining would change that.

jonknee 9y ago
> Buy enough shares to have operational control of facebook and you can do whatever you want with it. That's impossible thanks to the dual-class share structure that gives Zuckerberg complete control of the company.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Of course it is possible. It just involves getting one's hands on the shares of Zuck's class. The point is that all of the whining coming from journalistas/political class/guides/policy wonks etc is nothing other than whining of the former jocks who got de-throned.
  - jonknee 9y ago
    > The point is that all of the whining coming from journalistas/political class/guides/policy wonks etc is nothing other than whining of the former jocks who got de-throned. Or that it might be a serious problem to have a global scale company that has perfected shoveling content to people so well that it can be hijacked to shovel lies into whole countries. It's probably worth talking about. The fact that it's controlled entirely by one person is just another wrinkle.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      Sure, except that NYT and Co had the microphone for over one hundred and fifty years during which it went from "All the news that fit to print" to "All the news that fit, we print" with observably disastrous results. So pardon people who aren't quite interested in hearing its whining.
      - jonknee 9y ago
        The NYT has this article because the US Senate is bringing Facebook in to testify today. If the NYT went out of business tomorrow this would still be a topic of discussion.
  - kyleschiller 9y ago
    Okay sure, Facebook was built by nerds, and historically nerds in America have been bullied. Does that mean there can't be a legitimate criticism?
AlexandrB 9y ago
> No politico/journalista whining would change that. That's why we have government regulation.
- notyourday 9y ago
  No, that's why some people want to have government regulation of internet content. As of today, it does not exist.
  - jonknee 9y ago
    What are you talking about? Facebook successfully blocks all sorts of content because of its policies (porn) and government policies (child porn).
    - notyourday 9y ago
      The claim was: "That's why we have government regulation." We do not have government regulation for the content. "Facebook successfully blocks all sorts of content because of its policies (porn) and government policies (child porn)." No, facebook is blocking all kinds of content because in its view it can make less money allowing this content than not allowing this content. If facebook/twitter/tumblr/google/etc blocked child porn then there would have been no child porn on these platforms. Child porn does exist on these platforms because it is not being blocked.

jonknee 9y ago

> Buy enough shares to have operational control of facebook and you can do whatever you want with it. That's impossible thanks to the dual-class share structure that gives Zuckerberg complete control of the company.

notyourday 9y ago
Of course it is possible. It just involves getting one's hands on the shares of Zuck's class. The point is that all of the whining coming from journalistas/political class/guides/policy wonks etc is nothing other than whining of the former jocks who got de-throned.
- jonknee 9y ago
  > The point is that all of the whining coming from journalistas/political class/guides/policy wonks etc is nothing other than whining of the former jocks who got de-throned. Or that it might be a serious problem to have a global scale company that has perfected shoveling content to people so well that it can be hijacked to shovel lies into whole countries. It's probably worth talking about. The fact that it's controlled entirely by one person is just another wrinkle.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Sure, except that NYT and Co had the microphone for over one hundred and fifty years during which it went from "All the news that fit to print" to "All the news that fit, we print" with observably disastrous results. So pardon people who aren't quite interested in hearing its whining.
    - jonknee 9y ago
      The NYT has this article because the US Senate is bringing Facebook in to testify today. If the NYT went out of business tomorrow this would still be a topic of discussion.
- kyleschiller 9y ago
  Okay sure, Facebook was built by nerds, and historically nerds in America have been bullied. Does that mean there can't be a legitimate criticism?

AlexandrB 9y ago

> No politico/journalista whining would change that. That's why we have government regulation.

notyourday 9y ago
No, that's why some people want to have government regulation of internet content. As of today, it does not exist.
- jonknee 9y ago
  What are you talking about? Facebook successfully blocks all sorts of content because of its policies (porn) and government policies (child porn).
  - notyourday 9y ago
    The claim was: "That's why we have government regulation." We do not have government regulation for the content. "Facebook successfully blocks all sorts of content because of its policies (porn) and government policies (child porn)." No, facebook is blocking all kinds of content because in its view it can make less money allowing this content than not allowing this content. If facebook/twitter/tumblr/google/etc blocked child porn then there would have been no child porn on these platforms. Child porn does exist on these platforms because it is not being blocked.