5 ms·

>Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still do

by simias 9y ago

>Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. Beyond that and even if they make it slightly harder to build a social network in the future it doesn't mean that a reasonable amount of regulation is not worthwhile. If you want to start a bridge-building company you'll have to abide by a massive amount of rules, yet I'm not really sure I want to let the "completely free market" decide what a safe bridge looks like.

kristianc 9y ago
> Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Even assuming you have the data, Facebook's value is in the IP and ML algorithms. Facebook sure as hell isn't giving those up. Even assuming all that, how does it take us further forward than what we have now? There's a lot of arguments to the effect of 'something needs to be done' but not much detail on what an alternative looks like.
- nothrabannosir 9y ago
  > What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Making scraping of your personal data a statutory right, including the building and distributing of tools for it. No need to force FB to publish anything, just prevent them from blocking anyone who uses a tool to scrape their own data through the regular UI. This should draw the boundaries of responsibility in the right place. This would allow e.g. a “messaging” bridge which automatically interfaces with the messages part of the site, and bridges it to any tool (or API) you want. At least per user per account. This would force de facto federation without putting a burden on FB.
  - nv-vn 9y ago
    But then this brings us back to square 1, "tools" can just scrape user messages/content without authorization and then use that to collect data on those users. If the whole point is to solve the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, this is just going to make the situation 10x worse.
- simias 9y ago
  I genuinely don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just against shooting off the whole idea that there might be an answer worth considering because of the dogma held by some people that "regulations == bad". Let's wait until we actually see what these people propose (which at this point might very well be nothing at all), then we can scream bloody outrage that our freedom is in danger. If something needs to be done let's at least give one chance to the people who seem to be trying to do something.
- salawat 9y ago
  How about "information submitted by a person to a third party is still considered private"? The disingenuous loophole the government is so fond of whereby you sharing information with a third party suddenly negates ALL expectation of privacy and 4th Amendment protections is a farce. Signing up for Facebook should not be a "first sale" of your personal information or right to privacy. Of course, no tech company that has ridden the free ride of harvesting personal data would be on board with ANYTHING like that. They can keep their IP and algorithms if they want, but if I don't consent to the fruits of my existence being fed through them, then that is where it needs to stop. No company should feel safe with involuntarily increasing a user's digital footprint. Period. That covers not asking to and being explicitly told not to. A person has an inalienable right to maintain final authority over their digital presence. The only exception that makes sense to me is for the press. Though I haven't thought that implication through completely yet.
aesh2Xa1 9y ago
The concept of regulatory or legislative capture actually a mainstream one; hardly deserves the conspiracy label. Further, the author's claim is well supported by ongoing legislative efforts as well as those efforts of the administrative agencies. There's a legitimate and level-headed reason to have concern. I'd call it skepticism or pessism at worst.
- simias 9y ago
  I'm not saying that regulatory capture doesn't happen, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily happen every time a new piece of regulation is introduced. Saying that any hypothetical regulation introduced after this Facebook fiasco (and all the other data breaches of late) will benefit Facebook and hurt competitors is not exactly what I would call level-headed skepticism. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't be very careful about what comes out of this whole discussion and maybe make our voices heard if we deem it unfair or ineffective but we're not there yet.
  - mkirklions 9y ago
    Easy to say without seeing the proposals. Regulation can be awful or insignificant. My state requires strippers to fill out a license and pay 50$. Changed nothing. However, my state also requires you to put down 1M to start a bank. Thats definitely regulatory capture. Its too soon to know whats going to be required of data. Databases might become significantly worse to program and require teams to maintain at government standards.
    - danans 9y ago
      > Regulation can be awful or insignificant. No benefits at all, really? Remember pre-regulation leaded gasoline and cars without seat belts?
      - mkirklions 9y ago
        I think both of those examples had regulation where industry had already moved forward. I dont know the history of leaded gasoline, but I worked in safety, and car companies were definitely moving toward safe vehicles.
ataturk 9y ago
It's not a conspiracy theory. Ever since the Internet came into widespread use it's anarchic and free-wheeling style has driven the social engineers mad. The media also hates the Internet with an even more raging passion because they want to control the narrative forever and always. The world is "1984" and/or "Brave New World." Oh, you and your hateful anti-free market analogies. You want to be safe, but being safe means not being free. Sure there's middle ground, but we just watched a bridge collapse in Miami and that bridge was inspected by government wasn't it? So giving up that freedom gave us nothing but hollow promises. I'm with you, though. I want building codes, just not "Agenda 21."

by simias 9y ago

kristianc 9y ago

> Sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory to me, especially when we still don't know what these hypothetical regulations would look like. For instance if they make it easier to access your data, download and delete it they might somewhat weaken the lock-in effect of Facebook and level the playing field somewhat. What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Even assuming you have the data, Facebook's value is in the IP and ML algorithms. Facebook sure as hell isn't giving those up. Even assuming all that, how does it take us further forward than what we have now? There's a lot of arguments to the effect of 'something needs to be done' but not much detail on what an alternative looks like.

nothrabannosir 9y ago
> What is the ask here? A ZIP with all your information? A JSON file with your friendship graph? How would that be readable to most people? I doubt that Facebook's data structures are so portable that they could just be placed into another social network? Making scraping of your personal data a statutory right, including the building and distributing of tools for it. No need to force FB to publish anything, just prevent them from blocking anyone who uses a tool to scrape their own data through the regular UI. This should draw the boundaries of responsibility in the right place. This would allow e.g. a “messaging” bridge which automatically interfaces with the messages part of the site, and bridges it to any tool (or API) you want. At least per user per account. This would force de facto federation without putting a burden on FB.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  But then this brings us back to square 1, "tools" can just scrape user messages/content without authorization and then use that to collect data on those users. If the whole point is to solve the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, this is just going to make the situation 10x worse.
simias 9y ago
I genuinely don't have the answers to your questions. I'm just against shooting off the whole idea that there might be an answer worth considering because of the dogma held by some people that "regulations == bad". Let's wait until we actually see what these people propose (which at this point might very well be nothing at all), then we can scream bloody outrage that our freedom is in danger. If something needs to be done let's at least give one chance to the people who seem to be trying to do something.
salawat 9y ago
How about "information submitted by a person to a third party is still considered private"? The disingenuous loophole the government is so fond of whereby you sharing information with a third party suddenly negates ALL expectation of privacy and 4th Amendment protections is a farce. Signing up for Facebook should not be a "first sale" of your personal information or right to privacy. Of course, no tech company that has ridden the free ride of harvesting personal data would be on board with ANYTHING like that. They can keep their IP and algorithms if they want, but if I don't consent to the fruits of my existence being fed through them, then that is where it needs to stop. No company should feel safe with involuntarily increasing a user's digital footprint. Period. That covers not asking to and being explicitly told not to. A person has an inalienable right to maintain final authority over their digital presence. The only exception that makes sense to me is for the press. Though I haven't thought that implication through completely yet.

aesh2Xa1 9y ago

The concept of regulatory or legislative capture actually a mainstream one; hardly deserves the conspiracy label. Further, the author's claim is well supported by ongoing legislative efforts as well as those efforts of the administrative agencies. There's a legitimate and level-headed reason to have concern. I'd call it skepticism or pessism at worst.

simias 9y ago
I'm not saying that regulatory capture doesn't happen, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily happen every time a new piece of regulation is introduced. Saying that any hypothetical regulation introduced after this Facebook fiasco (and all the other data breaches of late) will benefit Facebook and hurt competitors is not exactly what I would call level-headed skepticism. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't be very careful about what comes out of this whole discussion and maybe make our voices heard if we deem it unfair or ineffective but we're not there yet.
- mkirklions 9y ago
  Easy to say without seeing the proposals. Regulation can be awful or insignificant. My state requires strippers to fill out a license and pay 50$. Changed nothing. However, my state also requires you to put down 1M to start a bank. Thats definitely regulatory capture. Its too soon to know whats going to be required of data. Databases might become significantly worse to program and require teams to maintain at government standards.
  - danans 9y ago
    > Regulation can be awful or insignificant. No benefits at all, really? Remember pre-regulation leaded gasoline and cars without seat belts?
    - mkirklions 9y ago
      I think both of those examples had regulation where industry had already moved forward. I dont know the history of leaded gasoline, but I worked in safety, and car companies were definitely moving toward safe vehicles.

ataturk 9y ago

It's not a conspiracy theory. Ever since the Internet came into widespread use it's anarchic and free-wheeling style has driven the social engineers mad. The media also hates the Internet with an even more raging passion because they want to control the narrative forever and always. The world is "1984" and/or "Brave New World." Oh, you and your hateful anti-free market analogies. You want to be safe, but being safe means not being free. Sure there's middle ground, but we just watched a bridge collapse in Miami and that bridge was inspected by government wasn't it? So giving up that freedom gave us nothing but hollow promises. I'm with you, though. I want building codes, just not "Agenda 21."