3 ms·

@frgtpsswrdlame could you elaborate how Tim Wu is relevant here? I'm asking from a self-education perspective.

• frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  He's done a mini media blitz, which you can see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-replace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/facebook-fix-repl... https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597221954/facebook-previously-failed-to-keep-privacy-promises-ex-ftc-adviser-says https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597221954/facebook-previously... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-zuckerberg-promises-change-but-facebook-has-failed-to-follow-through-in-the-past https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/mark-zuckerberg-promises-c... Also there's this older piece from him here: https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-should-pay-all-of-us https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-should-... Basically Wu has a much more radical critique of facebook which is probably best explained in his own words (from the npr piece): >I think the problem lies here. It's actually a very fundamental one, which is Facebook is always in the position of serving two masters. If its actual purpose was just trying to connect friends and family, and it didn't have a secondary motive of trying to also prove to another set of people that it could gather as much data as possible and make it possible to manipulate or influence or persuade people, then it wouldn't be a problem. For example, if they were a nonprofit, it wouldn't be a problem. >I think there's a sort of intrinsic problem with having for-profit entities with this business model in this position of so much public trust because they're always at the edge because their profitability depends on it.