7 ms·

Facebook has to be broken down to pieces. I think it has reached a state where it cannot be allowed to continue as a single company being able to observe/monito

Facebook has to be broken down to pieces. I think it has reached a state where it cannot be allowed to continue as a single company being able to observe/monitor public and private communication / social interaction of so many people and not being regulated and controlled by the government.

b0rsuk 9y ago
I'm afraid it won't work well without extra regulation laws. Even if Facebook is broken, it has shown the way. Before, it was MySpace (although it was never so popular). If someone breaks FB, the strongest competitor living in its shadow will step up. I think it is the nature of certain services to centralize. Search engines, social networks. Unless someone forces them to inter-operate, it's winner takes all.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  > Unless someone forces them to inter-operate, it's winner takes all. So you mandate inter-operation at the same time you break up the biggest, just like we've done with every other natural monopoly.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    I find it interesting that phone number portability was introduced long ago but no email or social profile portability.
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      While social media profile portability is generally impossible, almost all email providers will let you export email as a MBOX that you can then import into your new account.
      - saas_co_de 9y ago
        Moving your existing emails is not equivalent to phone number portability. Equivalency would be allowing me to take my gmail address and have it point to Proton Mail instead of Gmail. On the social network side full portability would mean being able to take your profile off of facebook but still having full interoperability with facebook so that users could still see your new posts and vice-versa.
        saagarjha 9y ago
        Ahh, I see what you're saying. The issue here is that most people have a company's name baked into their email address–so the equivalent for phone numbers would be like me having to dial the carrier name along with the phone number. There is a solution for this problem: give everyone an email address on their own domain, and allow the service "backing" it to be swapped out (this is what I do-I have an email on my domain, but it's transparently mapped to a preexisting Gmail inbox). Of course, the barrier here is that people are used to email being free and easy to set up, while this solution requires a domain name registration (so, around $10-$15 a year minimum) and some technical knowledge on how to set up MX records.
    - MereInterest 9y ago
      This is one of the main reasons why I have a custom domain for personal email. Right now, it forwards everything to gmail. In the future, I can have it forward to a different provider, or a mail server that I run (if I feel particularly masochistic). All of this without having to tell everyone I know to start using a different email address.
- jondubois 9y ago
  The US government should take possession of all Facebook shares and use the profits to fund universal basic income. I don't think anyone would complain... Except a tiny percent of the population who owned Facebook shares but who cares, they're evil/morally bankrupt anyway.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    You realize for them to make any profit off of “shares” they’d have to sell them back to someone willing to buy them... That’s aside from the fact that whole idea is ridiculous to begin with.
    - jondubois 9y ago
      The government would own the shares and make money from the dividends. Why is it ridiculous? The government of many countries have taken possession of many companies and land titles in the past for the benefit of society.
      - matte_black 9y ago
        Facebook does not pay a dividend. And what makes you think if the government did something like that Facebook wouldn’t just pack up and leave the country? They are a global company.
  - jayess 9y ago
    Lol, you realize that the government would have to pay current shareholders the value of their shares, right?
    - matte_black 9y ago
      I assume he meant the shares would be seized illegally.
monort 9y ago
Would you apply the same logic to government? Government has to be broken down to pieces. I think it has reached a state where it cannot be allowed to continue as a single government being able to observe/monitor public and private communication / social interaction of so many people and not being regulated and controlled by market forces.
- richardknop 9y ago
  Part of me (my young revolutionary part) is libertarian so yes I would say government is to be broken down. To be more precise in regards to your question. I want to live in the world where internet and social networks are businesses that don't rely on the government good will. I would prefer there to be no great firewall of China and the great firewall of US and Europe as it is forming right now. I know that is a losing battle. But we should fight for internet being a place without nationalistic restrictions that is able to operate without corrupt people in power being able to force their worldview upon us.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wil421 9y ago
  We already break government up into federal, state and local governments. What you stated is literally how it already works.
  - shawn-butler 9y ago
    That's how it may have used to work. The abuse of the Commerce clause has expanded the regulatory power of the federal government almost unilaterally.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      Sure, pre-'95. Not as much recently.
- codingdave 9y ago
felipeko 9y ago
I don't understand why do you think that. The biggest problem of big companies is when they hurt consumers with predatory practices. With Facebook I fail to see how that's the case. Everybody is perfectly capable of not being hurt by their own accord by just no using it. If the problem is how it influences politics and government, I think that's even a point against letting the government mess with it, as it is a power that can be easily misused by the party in power.
- deletefb 9y ago
  Yeah, why don’t opioid addicts just stop? And why don’t fat people just lose weight and eat healthy? And why don’t poor people just stop being poor? Clearly every issue in society is a result of a lack of personal responsibility.
  - felipeko 9y ago
    I'm all for people helping, looking for help or education. I'm against someone deciding that I cannot do something because it can be bad for me.
    - barrkel 9y ago
      I'm against someone deciding that I cannot do something because it can be bad for me. You don't live in a vacuum or a state with a population of one. If your actions have consequences - and most do, even if it's only through the socialized pooling effect of insurance - then there is a moral argument for society to regulate them. Personally I'm more of a fan of utilitarian thinking that takes into account second and third order effects. It's not enough to regulate X because X is bad; you need to look at what X is currently displacing, black market effects, underlying demand. But it's just silly to deny the moral legitimacy of regulation in itself - we all live in a society and it's childishly selfish to think you can just do as you please. It's prohibitively expensive to capture all the externalities of our actions, so we regulate instead.
    - intended 9y ago
      like not wearing seat belts?

b0rsuk 9y ago

I'm afraid it won't work well without extra regulation laws. Even if Facebook is broken, it has shown the way. Before, it was MySpace (although it was never so popular). If someone breaks FB, the strongest competitor living in its shadow will step up. I think it is the nature of certain services to centralize. Search engines, social networks. Unless someone forces them to inter-operate, it's winner takes all.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
> Unless someone forces them to inter-operate, it's winner takes all. So you mandate inter-operation at the same time you break up the biggest, just like we've done with every other natural monopoly.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  I find it interesting that phone number portability was introduced long ago but no email or social profile portability.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    While social media profile portability is generally impossible, almost all email providers will let you export email as a MBOX that you can then import into your new account.
    - saas_co_de 9y ago
      Moving your existing emails is not equivalent to phone number portability. Equivalency would be allowing me to take my gmail address and have it point to Proton Mail instead of Gmail. On the social network side full portability would mean being able to take your profile off of facebook but still having full interoperability with facebook so that users could still see your new posts and vice-versa.
      - saagarjha 9y ago
        Ahh, I see what you're saying. The issue here is that most people have a company's name baked into their email address–so the equivalent for phone numbers would be like me having to dial the carrier name along with the phone number. There is a solution for this problem: give everyone an email address on their own domain, and allow the service "backing" it to be swapped out (this is what I do-I have an email on my domain, but it's transparently mapped to a preexisting Gmail inbox). Of course, the barrier here is that people are used to email being free and easy to set up, while this solution requires a domain name registration (so, around $10-$15 a year minimum) and some technical knowledge on how to set up MX records.
  - MereInterest 9y ago
    This is one of the main reasons why I have a custom domain for personal email. Right now, it forwards everything to gmail. In the future, I can have it forward to a different provider, or a mail server that I run (if I feel particularly masochistic). All of this without having to tell everyone I know to start using a different email address.
jondubois 9y ago
The US government should take possession of all Facebook shares and use the profits to fund universal basic income. I don't think anyone would complain... Except a tiny percent of the population who owned Facebook shares but who cares, they're evil/morally bankrupt anyway.
- matte_black 9y ago
  You realize for them to make any profit off of “shares” they’d have to sell them back to someone willing to buy them... That’s aside from the fact that whole idea is ridiculous to begin with.
  - jondubois 9y ago
    The government would own the shares and make money from the dividends. Why is it ridiculous? The government of many countries have taken possession of many companies and land titles in the past for the benefit of society.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      Facebook does not pay a dividend. And what makes you think if the government did something like that Facebook wouldn’t just pack up and leave the country? They are a global company.
- jayess 9y ago
  Lol, you realize that the government would have to pay current shareholders the value of their shares, right?
  - matte_black 9y ago
    I assume he meant the shares would be seized illegally.

monort 9y ago

Would you apply the same logic to government? Government has to be broken down to pieces. I think it has reached a state where it cannot be allowed to continue as a single government being able to observe/monitor public and private communication / social interaction of so many people and not being regulated and controlled by market forces.

richardknop 9y ago
Part of me (my young revolutionary part) is libertarian so yes I would say government is to be broken down. To be more precise in regards to your question. I want to live in the world where internet and social networks are businesses that don't rely on the government good will. I would prefer there to be no great firewall of China and the great firewall of US and Europe as it is forming right now. I know that is a losing battle. But we should fight for internet being a place without nationalistic restrictions that is able to operate without corrupt people in power being able to force their worldview upon us.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wil421 9y ago
We already break government up into federal, state and local governments. What you stated is literally how it already works.
- shawn-butler 9y ago
  That's how it may have used to work. The abuse of the Commerce clause has expanded the regulatory power of the federal government almost unilaterally.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Sure, pre-'95. Not as much recently.
codingdave 9y ago

felipeko 9y ago

I don't understand why do you think that. The biggest problem of big companies is when they hurt consumers with predatory practices. With Facebook I fail to see how that's the case. Everybody is perfectly capable of not being hurt by their own accord by just no using it. If the problem is how it influences politics and government, I think that's even a point against letting the government mess with it, as it is a power that can be easily misused by the party in power.

deletefb 9y ago
Yeah, why don’t opioid addicts just stop? And why don’t fat people just lose weight and eat healthy? And why don’t poor people just stop being poor? Clearly every issue in society is a result of a lack of personal responsibility.
- felipeko 9y ago
  I'm all for people helping, looking for help or education. I'm against someone deciding that I cannot do something because it can be bad for me.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    I'm against someone deciding that I cannot do something because it can be bad for me. You don't live in a vacuum or a state with a population of one. If your actions have consequences - and most do, even if it's only through the socialized pooling effect of insurance - then there is a moral argument for society to regulate them. Personally I'm more of a fan of utilitarian thinking that takes into account second and third order effects. It's not enough to regulate X because X is bad; you need to look at what X is currently displacing, black market effects, underlying demand. But it's just silly to deny the moral legitimacy of regulation in itself - we all live in a society and it's childishly selfish to think you can just do as you please. It's prohibitively expensive to capture all the externalities of our actions, so we regulate instead.
  - intended 9y ago
    like not wearing seat belts?