5 ms·

Thech giants never stole the web. Governments have just failed to regulate them or failed to see the power they get with their currently vast scale. They need l

Thech giants never stole the web. Governments have just failed to regulate them or failed to see the power they get with their currently vast scale. They need laws and a set of ethical rules people will leave them for breaking.

loggedinmyphone 9y ago
What did Facebook do that should be illegal?
- patkai 9y ago
  Already four years ago they ran experiments [1] on how to program your mood. They built an API to your emotions, and they started selling it, without you knowing it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
  - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
    Are you proposing a law against trying to manipulate people's moods?
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      You mean a law against non-consensual psychological experiments? Yes.
      - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
        Sounds dodgy. If I give you a free refill to see how you react, I go to jail?
      - skinnymuch 9y ago
        That’s incredibly broad. Seems over the top.
      - cannonedhamster 9y ago
        Would this not outlaw the entire field of marketing and advertising? It's essentially entirely to cause an emotional reaction that bypasses your logical need centers to encourage you to purchase something.
        uoaei 9y ago
        Not the previous commenter, but many people have looked critically at marketing and media long enough to come to exactly this conclusion, myself included. To my mind, there is something inherently wrong about the techniques used to sway opinion about products and services. They prey on our animalian reflexes and bypass the part of the brain even capable of consent. Marketing "should" (and I don't use that word often) be prohibited to use such tactics, and instead be an exposition of the product and service and any traceable, trustworthy qualifications bestowed upon it. Such a system is still hackable (selling awards for instance), but it's a way better alternative to marketing practices than what we have today.
        loggedinmyphone 9y ago
        I dislike advertising and I'd love to see marketing move from a "push" to a "pull" model, where consumers ask for information about products they want. It's not easy to see how we get there. Defending the right of consumers to block ads, and moving from ad-based funding to subscriptions could be a start. An outright ban on ads - I don't see how that could happen without overreaching to non-infringing speech.
      - wonton2 9y ago
        This whole thread of comments seems constructed. The obvious answer to a obvously leading question ending in 3 (mine is the 4th) replies that basically disagrees with regulating advertisers. the first reply of the 3 belongs to one of the participants, but how and why would two more suddenly start participating in this thread many hours after the original post left the front page? It looks exactly like the strategy russia was using to manipulate social media conversations.
        loggedinmyphone 9y ago
        I can't comment about the other two posters, but I'm still waiting to hear how a law making it illegal to make inferences about people's behavior could possibly work. It sounds like the poster didn't think about the suggestion very carefully.
- wonton2 9y ago
  I think it should be illegal to require people to accept an agreement that enables facebook to sell their information to anyone. Not saying it is easy to do though. I guess that is part of what GDPR attempts to do in Europe. Intentions can be argued, but it is something.
- extra88 9y ago
  When a User uses a Facebook app and the app developer gets not only a bunch of data about the User but also about everyone in the User's social graph, that should be illegal; the User's friends did not give consent.
  - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
    But the user's friends did consent to have their data collected and sold when they joined the social networking site.
    - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
      I agree, but that’s asking for informed customers which is kind of a joke. Devils advocate, even us tech people don’t 100% understand the scope and reach of Facebook, what they are doing is unprecedented. It’s not like there could be really informed typical users.
    - extra88 9y ago
      Oh please. If that was reslly true, they wouldn’t have the ability to opt out.
      - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
        Just so I understand, the suggestion is that collecting and profiting from user information be illegal? I'm not necessarily opposed to that but it's certainly radical. Might be easier to just stop using services that do this.
        extra88 9y ago
        It’s not about profiting, it’s about handing over data to a third party without explicit consent. And yes, I am aware that’s how the credit companies like Equifax exist, they should not.
        9y ago
nickpp 9y ago
Big companies are the biggest fans of regulation. It raises the bar for entry and keeps those scrappy, pesky startups away.
- wonton2 9y ago
  Regulations dont have to be so heavy that you require consultants or a legal department. Regulation that protect the broad population from being exploited is neccessary everywhere. Just look at the crypto market compared to the more mature financial market. Issues with corporations manipulating the law makers is a separate problem.
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    >Regulations dont have to be so heavy that you require consultants or a legal department. Yea, and communism doesn’t have to fail because of greed (human nature), but it does.

loggedinmyphone 9y ago

What did Facebook do that should be illegal?

patkai 9y ago
Already four years ago they ran experiments [1] on how to program your mood. They built an API to your emotions, and they started selling it, without you knowing it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
- loggedinmyphone 9y ago
  Are you proposing a law against trying to manipulate people's moods?
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    You mean a law against non-consensual psychological experiments? Yes.
    - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
      Sounds dodgy. If I give you a free refill to see how you react, I go to jail?
    - skinnymuch 9y ago
      That’s incredibly broad. Seems over the top.
    - cannonedhamster 9y ago
      Would this not outlaw the entire field of marketing and advertising? It's essentially entirely to cause an emotional reaction that bypasses your logical need centers to encourage you to purchase something.
      - uoaei 9y ago
        Not the previous commenter, but many people have looked critically at marketing and media long enough to come to exactly this conclusion, myself included. To my mind, there is something inherently wrong about the techniques used to sway opinion about products and services. They prey on our animalian reflexes and bypass the part of the brain even capable of consent. Marketing "should" (and I don't use that word often) be prohibited to use such tactics, and instead be an exposition of the product and service and any traceable, trustworthy qualifications bestowed upon it. Such a system is still hackable (selling awards for instance), but it's a way better alternative to marketing practices than what we have today.
        loggedinmyphone 9y ago
        I dislike advertising and I'd love to see marketing move from a "push" to a "pull" model, where consumers ask for information about products they want. It's not easy to see how we get there. Defending the right of consumers to block ads, and moving from ad-based funding to subscriptions could be a start. An outright ban on ads - I don't see how that could happen without overreaching to non-infringing speech.
    - wonton2 9y ago
      This whole thread of comments seems constructed. The obvious answer to a obvously leading question ending in 3 (mine is the 4th) replies that basically disagrees with regulating advertisers. the first reply of the 3 belongs to one of the participants, but how and why would two more suddenly start participating in this thread many hours after the original post left the front page? It looks exactly like the strategy russia was using to manipulate social media conversations.
      - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
        I can't comment about the other two posters, but I'm still waiting to hear how a law making it illegal to make inferences about people's behavior could possibly work. It sounds like the poster didn't think about the suggestion very carefully.
wonton2 9y ago
I think it should be illegal to require people to accept an agreement that enables facebook to sell their information to anyone. Not saying it is easy to do though. I guess that is part of what GDPR attempts to do in Europe. Intentions can be argued, but it is something.
extra88 9y ago
When a User uses a Facebook app and the app developer gets not only a bunch of data about the User but also about everyone in the User's social graph, that should be illegal; the User's friends did not give consent.
- loggedinmyphone 9y ago
  But the user's friends did consent to have their data collected and sold when they joined the social networking site.
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    I agree, but that’s asking for informed customers which is kind of a joke. Devils advocate, even us tech people don’t 100% understand the scope and reach of Facebook, what they are doing is unprecedented. It’s not like there could be really informed typical users.
  - extra88 9y ago
    Oh please. If that was reslly true, they wouldn’t have the ability to opt out.
    - loggedinmyphone 9y ago
      Just so I understand, the suggestion is that collecting and profiting from user information be illegal? I'm not necessarily opposed to that but it's certainly radical. Might be easier to just stop using services that do this.
      - extra88 9y ago
        It’s not about profiting, it’s about handing over data to a third party without explicit consent. And yes, I am aware that’s how the credit companies like Equifax exist, they should not.
        9y ago

nickpp 9y ago

Big companies are the biggest fans of regulation. It raises the bar for entry and keeps those scrappy, pesky startups away.

wonton2 9y ago
Regulations dont have to be so heavy that you require consultants or a legal department. Regulation that protect the broad population from being exploited is neccessary everywhere. Just look at the crypto market compared to the more mature financial market. Issues with corporations manipulating the law makers is a separate problem.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  >Regulations dont have to be so heavy that you require consultants or a legal department. Yea, and communism doesn’t have to fail because of greed (human nature), but it does.