4 ms·

I think they're saying it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Facebook to stop existing.

by kibibu 8y ago

city41 8y ago
But that gap would just be filled by someone else. You can’t really stop technology and human greed.
- untog 8y ago
  I think that one company should be legally prohibited from occupying a gap that large. It happened with AT&T back and the day, and it feels like we are overdue today. Facebook shouldn't have been able to buy WhatsApp and Instagram.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  Sure you can, you can at least reign it in. We do it all the time. Every time I read sentences like "you cannot stop technology xy" what you actually seem to mean is "I don't want to". We have international nuclear arms proliferation agreements that are reasonably effective. We keep the worst actors in the world from possessing biological weapons. But we cannot control what social media company Mark Zuckerberg let's loose on the world? And we can't stop greed? Compared to the robber baron era we're all bleeding heart socialists. Change is possible and we can determine what technologies we want to live with as a society.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The problem is that the thing you're really trying to control here is technologically-enabled gossip. You don't need a behemoth the size of Facebook for that. Stuff like Myanmar, that could happen just as well with simple text messages (1 guy sends to 2, each of those sends to 2 as well, and it goes exponential).
    - Barrin92 8y ago
      we've had popular and commercial peer or group based messaging for more than two/three decades now, but nothing has rivaled the virality and speed of Facebook, twitter and so forth. There's a difference between propagation in a private network of a handful of people at a time, and the sort of mass agitation of public social news feeds. If twitter would only allow direct sharing between say, a personal circle of friends, I'd bet you a lot of money that we'd see very different outcomes.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        In Myanmar, it was the private network of individuals, resharing posts on WhatsApp. Everyone only shares to their direct friends - but then those friends share with their friends etc. And I don't see how you can restrict that technologically - I mean, you could block share-of-share, but then people will just reshare screenshots (it's already common enough as it is).
- mcv 8y ago
  That might have saved Google+. Of course it's questionable whether Google would have handled it any better. I'm really hoping we're headed towards decentralised federated social networks. With more control in the hands of the users. Like email + usenet on steroids. Not that those were perfect, but in that kind of environment, everybody can curate their own little corner, rather than putting all that in the hands of a single company.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Large industries with the ability to cause far-reaching harm have been regulated many times before.
  - Draiken 8y ago
    Not to sound pessimistic but... have they been really regulated? The most common example of this is the tobacco industry and it's pretty much still there. Smaller, sure. But do we really regulate the sugar industry killing millions every day? Or the car industries destroying the environment, cities and people? Oil industry perhaps? There are many other examples of these. They are "regulated" in the strict sense, but in reality, they control governments and keep doing whatever they want. I don't think anything will ever change in this scenario. After all, capitalism is the answer to every problem, right? /s
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      There is plenty of reason to see it as a bit grim, but a lot of good has been done. I was specifically thinking of the industrial revolution and the abysmal human rights records, pollution and desperate mill towns which ground people to death. It’s a low bar, but things have got better.
    - moneil971 8y ago
      So social media is like the tobacco industry? And what weas users knowingly, purposely share online should be regulated? And by which government? Companies like Facebook are global.
      - lostlogin 8y ago
        And smokers still knowingly smoke, causing themselves and others harm. Because of this (and also arguably for revenue) the behaviour of the multinational tobacco companies is regulated by the governments in the countries they operate in. Regarding what should be regulated, I’d say that assisting genocide should be blocked for a start.
      - Draiken 8y ago

I think they're saying it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Facebook to stop existing.

by kibibu 8y ago

I think they're saying it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for Facebook to stop existing.

city41 8y ago

But that gap would just be filled by someone else. You can’t really stop technology and human greed.

untog 8y ago
I think that one company should be legally prohibited from occupying a gap that large. It happened with AT&T back and the day, and it feels like we are overdue today. Facebook shouldn't have been able to buy WhatsApp and Instagram.
Barrin92 8y ago
Sure you can, you can at least reign it in. We do it all the time. Every time I read sentences like "you cannot stop technology xy" what you actually seem to mean is "I don't want to". We have international nuclear arms proliferation agreements that are reasonably effective. We keep the worst actors in the world from possessing biological weapons. But we cannot control what social media company Mark Zuckerberg let's loose on the world? And we can't stop greed? Compared to the robber baron era we're all bleeding heart socialists. Change is possible and we can determine what technologies we want to live with as a society.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The problem is that the thing you're really trying to control here is technologically-enabled gossip. You don't need a behemoth the size of Facebook for that. Stuff like Myanmar, that could happen just as well with simple text messages (1 guy sends to 2, each of those sends to 2 as well, and it goes exponential).
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    we've had popular and commercial peer or group based messaging for more than two/three decades now, but nothing has rivaled the virality and speed of Facebook, twitter and so forth. There's a difference between propagation in a private network of a handful of people at a time, and the sort of mass agitation of public social news feeds. If twitter would only allow direct sharing between say, a personal circle of friends, I'd bet you a lot of money that we'd see very different outcomes.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      In Myanmar, it was the private network of individuals, resharing posts on WhatsApp. Everyone only shares to their direct friends - but then those friends share with their friends etc. And I don't see how you can restrict that technologically - I mean, you could block share-of-share, but then people will just reshare screenshots (it's already common enough as it is).
mcv 8y ago
That might have saved Google+. Of course it's questionable whether Google would have handled it any better. I'm really hoping we're headed towards decentralised federated social networks. With more control in the hands of the users. Like email + usenet on steroids. Not that those were perfect, but in that kind of environment, everybody can curate their own little corner, rather than putting all that in the hands of a single company.
lostlogin 8y ago
Large industries with the ability to cause far-reaching harm have been regulated many times before.
- Draiken 8y ago
  Not to sound pessimistic but... have they been really regulated? The most common example of this is the tobacco industry and it's pretty much still there. Smaller, sure. But do we really regulate the sugar industry killing millions every day? Or the car industries destroying the environment, cities and people? Oil industry perhaps? There are many other examples of these. They are "regulated" in the strict sense, but in reality, they control governments and keep doing whatever they want. I don't think anything will ever change in this scenario. After all, capitalism is the answer to every problem, right? /s
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    There is plenty of reason to see it as a bit grim, but a lot of good has been done. I was specifically thinking of the industrial revolution and the abysmal human rights records, pollution and desperate mill towns which ground people to death. It’s a low bar, but things have got better.
  - moneil971 8y ago
    So social media is like the tobacco industry? And what weas users knowingly, purposely share online should be regulated? And by which government? Companies like Facebook are global.
    - lostlogin 8y ago
      And smokers still knowingly smoke, causing themselves and others harm. Because of this (and also arguably for revenue) the behaviour of the multinational tobacco companies is regulated by the governments in the countries they operate in. Regarding what should be regulated, I’d say that assisting genocide should be blocked for a start.
    - Draiken 8y ago