5 ms·

It's well known at this point that regulations tend to protect incumbents in many industries by making it more expensive for startups to compete. Industry supp

It's well known at this point that regulations tend to protect incumbents in many industries by making it more expensive for startups to compete. Industry support for regulations can seem counter-intuitive -- why would a company want to increase its cost of doing business? But it makes sense when you consider that the costs are an anti-competitive weapon. One example is when Philip Morris supported FDA regulations of cigarettes: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2002/07/smoke_screen.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2002/07/smok... So, we should be very careful about how we regulate companies' use of customer data, lest we make it even more difficult for Facebook's competitors.

bitumen 9y ago
I really don’t care if building codes, automotive safety regulations, and standards of medical care make it hard on new businesses. My priorities are not dying in a car crash, my home not falling on my head, and avoiding incompetent doctors. Regulation on tobacco may have helped incumbents stay incumbent, but it also led to record judgements against the, and the rapid decline of their industry in the developed world. That it’s harder for a tobacco startup to get off the ground is a bonus.
- brrrrr 9y ago
  Except Facebook isn’t cigarettes, dude. No matter how much you want it to be cigarettes, it just isn’t. Facebook is a boredom cure at best, and at times it can be a version of the cold, hard, cringey truth. You might complain that Facebook harms mental health, but the reality is that sometimes the truth is the most depressing thing to learn. If Facebook does harm by preventing enough escapism, there’s no regulatory cure to fix that. You’ll just have to wait for the tide to shift. But hey, look at that, today’s your lucky day...
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    Facebook, and large scale social media in general, does harm by substituting for genuine real-world social interaction, by warping our perception of other people's lives (highlight-reel effect on steroids), by pushing us to become egotistical "self-marketers", and by hijacking our attention via insidious manipulation of the lizard brain.
    - brrrrr 9y ago
      Hmmm, not quite. See, that’s the part about the boredom cure I mentioned. People really are that bored. People’s lives are frequently very lackluster and uneventful. This is plainly obvious, because whenever someone delightfully ordinary (yet comfortable with that) comes along, it seems like such a breath of fresh air amongst all the puffed out try-hards that grab so much attention. The cringey reality check is the depressing part that creates the anxiety of never wanting to leave the house. People have a hard time differentiating between bullshit and not bullshit. It’s not entirely correct to blame Facebook in particular for the inadequacy felt, when comparing one’s self to someone else’s carefully currated (yet seemingly natural) photo album. That part of the debate is just the bulemia-caused-by-waif-as-fashion-model-redux. You can’t fix that by removing Facebook from the equation, because people will never stop beautifying their profile pics and cherry picking exclusive-yet-swollen friend lists. So we’ll cure it by all jumping ship to Mastodon, where the photo albums will be crappier and less enviable, and we’ll all be less cringey? That’s the plan? This isn’t about elections at all, is it?
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        That's why I mentioned broader social media in general. This problem isn't specific to Facebook alone.
    - darepublic 9y ago
      The constant posting of people salivating for regulations like yourself is also hijacking my attention and warping my perception of how misguided society at large really is. You are insidiously manipulating my lizard brain to want to destroy you, while I should be productively working. Please stop your egotistical wish marketing and regulate yourself so I can not be distracted.
      - dwaltrip 9y ago
        I'm not the person several comments up who brought up regulations. I don't yet have a strong opinion about what regulations, if any, might be beneficial. I was merely responding to a comment that I thought didn't accurately portray the harms that social media can cause. Perhaps you could address those points? > to want to destroy you That doesn't sound healthy...
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  I'm not so sure Facebook is in the same category as vehicles, medical care and addictive carcinogens.
  - gnode 9y ago
    I would say it's more comparable to the casino. Psychology is analysed and exploited to the benefit of the house. To some it's harmless entertainment, and to others it's devastating. Support for regulation of casinos is born largely out of the idea that many people are not fully responsible for their psychology. Federated social media (e.g. Mastodon) only serves part of the problem. It's like going from the casino to your friends' houses; ill effects still exist, but the domain is not controlled by a profiteer, who may have incentives to maximise and exploit those ill effects.
    - reading-at-work 9y ago
      Eh, maybe. But worst case scenario at a casino is you blow your life savings. Worst case on Facebook is you waste a few hours of your time being bored. Additionally, if we do introduce social media regulations (shudder) you can guarantee Facebook will have a hand in writing/influencing them to benefit itself and hurt any startup competitors, as the article argues. I wouldn't be opposed to basic data protection laws, but I'm always wary of "oh just regulate them" as an automatic cure-all for when we don't like how a company behaves. There's almost always unintended consequences.
admax88q 9y ago
We should be very weary of regulation that has support from those it regulates.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
No. Privacy should never be second priority. Citizens' right to privacy trumps startup creation.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > Citizens' right to privacy trumps startup creation. You're assuming that regulatory capture protects privacy better than competition would. The evidence is to the contrary. Debian and Open Whisper Systems are better at it than AT&T and Comcast.
  - gnode 9y ago
    Competition only works if the customer has relevant information. For a cable network's customers it's instantly apparent when their internet speeds suck; it's not apparent when someone sells your private data. It doesn't matter that the information eventually comes to light, because they're the dominant social media company by that point, buying up their competitors, and it takes a lot more to get rid of them.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > For a cable network's customers it's instantly apparent when their internet speeds suck; it's not apparent when someone sells your private data. There is no way to tell when they sell it but there is a way to tell when they have it to begin with. If you're using software with public source code that you know is end-to-end encrypting the message to the recipient, you know there is no third party doing nefarious things with the data, because no third party has the data to begin with. And that's the distinction that matters. Prohibiting a company from selling your data to someone who will do evil things with it is no use if the company itself can still do the exact same evil things with it. Or just get itself hacked like Equifax and reveal all the data to the attacker.

bitumen 9y ago

I really don’t care if building codes, automotive safety regulations, and standards of medical care make it hard on new businesses. My priorities are not dying in a car crash, my home not falling on my head, and avoiding incompetent doctors. Regulation on tobacco may have helped incumbents stay incumbent, but it also led to record judgements against the, and the rapid decline of their industry in the developed world. That it’s harder for a tobacco startup to get off the ground is a bonus.

brrrrr 9y ago
Except Facebook isn’t cigarettes, dude. No matter how much you want it to be cigarettes, it just isn’t. Facebook is a boredom cure at best, and at times it can be a version of the cold, hard, cringey truth. You might complain that Facebook harms mental health, but the reality is that sometimes the truth is the most depressing thing to learn. If Facebook does harm by preventing enough escapism, there’s no regulatory cure to fix that. You’ll just have to wait for the tide to shift. But hey, look at that, today’s your lucky day...
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  Facebook, and large scale social media in general, does harm by substituting for genuine real-world social interaction, by warping our perception of other people's lives (highlight-reel effect on steroids), by pushing us to become egotistical "self-marketers", and by hijacking our attention via insidious manipulation of the lizard brain.
  - brrrrr 9y ago
    Hmmm, not quite. See, that’s the part about the boredom cure I mentioned. People really are that bored. People’s lives are frequently very lackluster and uneventful. This is plainly obvious, because whenever someone delightfully ordinary (yet comfortable with that) comes along, it seems like such a breath of fresh air amongst all the puffed out try-hards that grab so much attention. The cringey reality check is the depressing part that creates the anxiety of never wanting to leave the house. People have a hard time differentiating between bullshit and not bullshit. It’s not entirely correct to blame Facebook in particular for the inadequacy felt, when comparing one’s self to someone else’s carefully currated (yet seemingly natural) photo album. That part of the debate is just the bulemia-caused-by-waif-as-fashion-model-redux. You can’t fix that by removing Facebook from the equation, because people will never stop beautifying their profile pics and cherry picking exclusive-yet-swollen friend lists. So we’ll cure it by all jumping ship to Mastodon, where the photo albums will be crappier and less enviable, and we’ll all be less cringey? That’s the plan? This isn’t about elections at all, is it?
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      That's why I mentioned broader social media in general. This problem isn't specific to Facebook alone.
  - darepublic 9y ago
    The constant posting of people salivating for regulations like yourself is also hijacking my attention and warping my perception of how misguided society at large really is. You are insidiously manipulating my lizard brain to want to destroy you, while I should be productively working. Please stop your egotistical wish marketing and regulate yourself so I can not be distracted.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      I'm not the person several comments up who brought up regulations. I don't yet have a strong opinion about what regulations, if any, might be beneficial. I was merely responding to a comment that I thought didn't accurately portray the harms that social media can cause. Perhaps you could address those points? > to want to destroy you That doesn't sound healthy...
reading-at-work 9y ago
I'm not so sure Facebook is in the same category as vehicles, medical care and addictive carcinogens.
- gnode 9y ago
  I would say it's more comparable to the casino. Psychology is analysed and exploited to the benefit of the house. To some it's harmless entertainment, and to others it's devastating. Support for regulation of casinos is born largely out of the idea that many people are not fully responsible for their psychology. Federated social media (e.g. Mastodon) only serves part of the problem. It's like going from the casino to your friends' houses; ill effects still exist, but the domain is not controlled by a profiteer, who may have incentives to maximise and exploit those ill effects.
  - reading-at-work 9y ago
    Eh, maybe. But worst case scenario at a casino is you blow your life savings. Worst case on Facebook is you waste a few hours of your time being bored. Additionally, if we do introduce social media regulations (shudder) you can guarantee Facebook will have a hand in writing/influencing them to benefit itself and hurt any startup competitors, as the article argues. I wouldn't be opposed to basic data protection laws, but I'm always wary of "oh just regulate them" as an automatic cure-all for when we don't like how a company behaves. There's almost always unintended consequences.

admax88q 9y ago

We should be very weary of regulation that has support from those it regulates.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

No. Privacy should never be second priority. Citizens' right to privacy trumps startup creation.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> Citizens' right to privacy trumps startup creation. You're assuming that regulatory capture protects privacy better than competition would. The evidence is to the contrary. Debian and Open Whisper Systems are better at it than AT&T and Comcast.
- gnode 9y ago
  Competition only works if the customer has relevant information. For a cable network's customers it's instantly apparent when their internet speeds suck; it's not apparent when someone sells your private data. It doesn't matter that the information eventually comes to light, because they're the dominant social media company by that point, buying up their competitors, and it takes a lot more to get rid of them.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > For a cable network's customers it's instantly apparent when their internet speeds suck; it's not apparent when someone sells your private data. There is no way to tell when they sell it but there is a way to tell when they have it to begin with. If you're using software with public source code that you know is end-to-end encrypting the message to the recipient, you know there is no third party doing nefarious things with the data, because no third party has the data to begin with. And that's the distinction that matters. Prohibiting a company from selling your data to someone who will do evil things with it is no use if the company itself can still do the exact same evil things with it. Or just get itself hacked like Equifax and reveal all the data to the attacker.