3 ms·
As the article mentions, this would possibly cement Facebook's position in the market, as they have the resources to comply, whereas "the next Facebook" might n
by oflannabhra 9y ago
As the article mentions, this would possibly cement Facebook's position in the market, as they have the resources to comply, whereas "the next Facebook" might not.
This is one possible explanation as to why Zuckerberg is conciliatory to any call from congressmen for regulation.
- dave5104 9y agoIf "the next Facebook" is also going to mishandle my user data because they can't possibly comply with privacy regulations, then quite frankly I don't care if they can't make it.
- oflannabhra 9y agoI don't think the article is arguing against regulation--it is arguing for competition. Thompson's point is that the real issue is not privacy, but that Facebook is incentivized to disregard privacy because that have zero competition. That is, they have the luxury of disregarding user privacy because they have a monopoly on the social network (and have been allowed to strengthen it through acquisitions). I'd argue that both regulation and competition are necessary. Regulation to make data protected and portable, while punishing breach of data, and competition to allow the market to create alternatives. Right now people don't leave Facebook because there is nowhere else to go, and no way to take their graph with them.