4 ms·

> it also helps to shift the blame away from Hillary's party for losing the election because of a terribly run campaign This doesn't have anything to do with H

> it also helps to shift the blame away from Hillary's party for losing the election because of a terribly run campaign This doesn't have anything to do with Hillary or that whole "election hacking" story. If you've followed the hearings and the angles that US legislators have been taking on these companies it seems clear that most of them don't see this as being related to the elections at all. From what I've seen the focus has been on the fact that foreign nation states are able to use the tools provided by these companies to target groups of people and then directly use the promotion and communication channels provided by these companies to pump propaganda to those groups. And that this has been done already, specifically to instigate division and confrontation between groups within our society. Side notes: 1. Maybe you think that their tools don't have an impact on people and this is all just hyperbole. Perhaps that's true, but if it is true then the business model they've been pitching to advertisers seems like hyperbole as well. 2. All of that aside. These few companies have quickly become the dominant gateway for which a majority of people access the internet. It's where they read news, talk to family and friends, organize events, keep all of their photos, keep their contact list, authenticate into other websites on the internet, get tracked by ads and social media buttons across the internet... None of which is inherently bad but it seems foolish for us to not keep them in check. We don't exist to make sure their companies survive. If society decides that the amount of risk and harm resulting from them outweighs the potential good in their current form then we should consider regulation.

tambienben 9y ago
Regulation by whome, exactly? At least in its current state, I get to choose between my state-sponsored media attacks... If your opaque point is that we need to break these companies up for... reasons... (Because maybe Russia-something?) Then I suppose I disagree with you less, but not on that principle. It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. But educating is impossible because it would lead to a more informed public.
- wybiral 9y ago
  > Regulation by whome, exactly? Regulation by publicly elected and representative officials in our democracy. > It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. I'm not talking about censorship. My point was regarding the mass data collection and analysis of our personal information that's being done at an impressive scale by these for-profit companies without any form of oversight or transparency. It isn't cool when the NSA does it and it isn't cool when they're doing it either. Especially not if they're actually profiting from selling our data to other people who are doing whoknowswhat. There is no incentive for them to be responsible.
  - tambienben 9y ago
    Publicly elected officials on what level? The FCC? What powers are we giving them? When I hear a Senator Dianne Feinstein scolding a panel of tech giants, I don't hear a benevolent leader with our best interests at heart, I hear someone infantalizing me for their own gain. If the topic is data retention, let's target everyone. No one should be safe unless they can justify it under scrutiny & demonstrate security. If the topic is "fake news", then its a battle of definitions, & regulation is unconstitutional on any government level--no matter how you spin it.

tambienben 9y ago

Regulation by whome, exactly? At least in its current state, I get to choose between my state-sponsored media attacks... If your opaque point is that we need to break these companies up for... reasons... (Because maybe Russia-something?) Then I suppose I disagree with you less, but not on that principle. It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. But educating is impossible because it would lead to a more informed public.

wybiral 9y ago
> Regulation by whome, exactly? Regulation by publicly elected and representative officials in our democracy. > It seems to me that these problems are better solved through education, rather than censorship & policing. I'm not talking about censorship. My point was regarding the mass data collection and analysis of our personal information that's being done at an impressive scale by these for-profit companies without any form of oversight or transparency. It isn't cool when the NSA does it and it isn't cool when they're doing it either. Especially not if they're actually profiting from selling our data to other people who are doing whoknowswhat. There is no incentive for them to be responsible.
- tambienben 9y ago
  Publicly elected officials on what level? The FCC? What powers are we giving them? When I hear a Senator Dianne Feinstein scolding a panel of tech giants, I don't hear a benevolent leader with our best interests at heart, I hear someone infantalizing me for their own gain. If the topic is data retention, let's target everyone. No one should be safe unless they can justify it under scrutiny & demonstrate security. If the topic is "fake news", then its a battle of definitions, & regulation is unconstitutional on any government level--no matter how you spin it.