3 ms·

The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. Doesn't it creep you out that one company has a monopoly on the social graph

The main reason no practical alternatives to Facebook exist is the network effect. Doesn't it creep you out that one company has a monopoly on the social graph? When we busted up Ma Bell, we basically put into place standards for interoperation. What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? Basically, the idea is that once you're massive enough in social media, you don't get to hold onto your lead purely through the network effect. Staying at the top, just because you're at the top doesn't really promote the general welfare of society or motivate people to make better products. The main reason that competitors to Google don't do well is that people will just use the search engine that returns the most relevant results (unless your internet connection is censored). At home, I use Duck Duck Go. It gives good enough results but comes with a better reputation with regards to privacy.

haberman 8y ago
> What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? To me that sounds like legally-mandated proliferation of sensitive user data. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is essentially a case of Facebook being too open with their data.
twblalock 8y ago
> What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? If we open up Facebook's data to other companies, what makes you think those companies are willing and capable of securing the data and respecting user privacy? Facebook having all of that data is bad enough. Requiring Facebook to share it with other companies would not make that data more secure -- but it could definitely make it less secure.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  For one, where sharing of data is concerned, none of this is about forcing Facebook to give your data to some random third party that asks for it. It is about you as a user being able to demand from Facebook that they make your data (or some selection of it) accessible to some third party of your choice. But also, and maybe more importantly, interoperation does not really necessarily require any sharing of data. Think the telephone network: All telephone network operators world wide do interoperate, which is why it doesn't matter where you are a customer, you still can call any other telephone on the planet. But that doesn't mean that those telcos somehow share data of their customers, apart from the particular calls that happen between customers of two different telcos. Also, one way in which Facebook could be forced to share data would be for migration to a different service: If you think Facebook is abusing your data, you could move to a different provider, and Facebook would have to allow them to pull your data over and then delete it on their side--and all that without you losing contact with people who stay on Facebook thanks to enforced interoperability.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    But also, and maybe more importantly, interoperation does not really necessarily require any sharing of data. DRM actually has a potential for societal good. We should make companies like Facebook subject to DRM around our data. DRM is subject to the same asymmetry as privacy. Privacy for individuals is a societal good, in contrast to governments and big public companies, which should be as transparent as possible. Likewise, DRM used by big companies and organizations against individuals is bad for individuals and societies. However, DRM used on behalf of individuals to protect them from big companies would be a societal good.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      Well, except it doesn't, because it necessarily either doesn't work or it is centrally controlled. What does help is simply encryption and decentralized services, no need for DRM.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Well, except it doesn't, because it necessarily either doesn't work or it is centrally controlled. Putting in another hoop for abusive corporations to jump through does have a function. There would be additional opportunities for whistleblowers to spot it happening, opening up the company to legal and regulatory action. Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be centrally controlled. 3rd party companies could be hired to do the administration. What does help is simply encryption and decentralized services, no need for DRM. DRM could well be implemented as encryption and decentralized services.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > Putting in another hoop for abusive corporations to jump through does have a function. There would be additional opportunities for whistleblowers to spot it happening, opening up the company to legal and regulatory action. Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be centrally controlled. 3rd party companies could be hired to do the administration. In which case DRM doesn't do anything, but regulation and whistleblowers do? > DRM could well be implemented as encryption and decentralized services. How would that work? You don't have control over your own machine, but everyone else does?! DRM is the idea that your property has a function that controls what you can do with your property based on instructions from a third party ... who would that "decentralized third party"(?) be? And what would even be the point of that? I am not sure I even understand what kind of construction you have in mind that would qualify as DRM and also be useful for the end user in any way.
ucaetano 8y ago
> At home, I use Duck Duck Go. It gives good enough results but comes with a better reputation with regards to privacy. The fact that you do so, with no additional effort needed, kinda breaks the entire trust/monopoly argument, doesn't it?
jedberg 8y ago
Facebook bought Instagram because Instagram was beating them at the social network game. So it is possible to create a new social network and win. BUT the interoperability is key. I think if they just legislated that part of it, it would be a win for consumers. Maybe we can get the EU to pass some data probability laws and force Facebook and Google to share...

haberman 8y ago

> What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? To me that sounds like legally-mandated proliferation of sensitive user data. The Cambridge Analytica scandal is essentially a case of Facebook being too open with their data.

twblalock 8y ago

> What if we had a law mandating social graph companies open themselves up for interoperation once they reach some critical threshold of size? If we open up Facebook's data to other companies, what makes you think those companies are willing and capable of securing the data and respecting user privacy? Facebook having all of that data is bad enough. Requiring Facebook to share it with other companies would not make that data more secure -- but it could definitely make it less secure.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
For one, where sharing of data is concerned, none of this is about forcing Facebook to give your data to some random third party that asks for it. It is about you as a user being able to demand from Facebook that they make your data (or some selection of it) accessible to some third party of your choice. But also, and maybe more importantly, interoperation does not really necessarily require any sharing of data. Think the telephone network: All telephone network operators world wide do interoperate, which is why it doesn't matter where you are a customer, you still can call any other telephone on the planet. But that doesn't mean that those telcos somehow share data of their customers, apart from the particular calls that happen between customers of two different telcos. Also, one way in which Facebook could be forced to share data would be for migration to a different service: If you think Facebook is abusing your data, you could move to a different provider, and Facebook would have to allow them to pull your data over and then delete it on their side--and all that without you losing contact with people who stay on Facebook thanks to enforced interoperability.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  But also, and maybe more importantly, interoperation does not really necessarily require any sharing of data. DRM actually has a potential for societal good. We should make companies like Facebook subject to DRM around our data. DRM is subject to the same asymmetry as privacy. Privacy for individuals is a societal good, in contrast to governments and big public companies, which should be as transparent as possible. Likewise, DRM used by big companies and organizations against individuals is bad for individuals and societies. However, DRM used on behalf of individuals to protect them from big companies would be a societal good.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Well, except it doesn't, because it necessarily either doesn't work or it is centrally controlled. What does help is simply encryption and decentralized services, no need for DRM.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Well, except it doesn't, because it necessarily either doesn't work or it is centrally controlled. Putting in another hoop for abusive corporations to jump through does have a function. There would be additional opportunities for whistleblowers to spot it happening, opening up the company to legal and regulatory action. Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be centrally controlled. 3rd party companies could be hired to do the administration. What does help is simply encryption and decentralized services, no need for DRM. DRM could well be implemented as encryption and decentralized services.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > Putting in another hoop for abusive corporations to jump through does have a function. There would be additional opportunities for whistleblowers to spot it happening, opening up the company to legal and regulatory action. Also, it wouldn't necessarily have to be centrally controlled. 3rd party companies could be hired to do the administration. In which case DRM doesn't do anything, but regulation and whistleblowers do? > DRM could well be implemented as encryption and decentralized services. How would that work? You don't have control over your own machine, but everyone else does?! DRM is the idea that your property has a function that controls what you can do with your property based on instructions from a third party ... who would that "decentralized third party"(?) be? And what would even be the point of that? I am not sure I even understand what kind of construction you have in mind that would qualify as DRM and also be useful for the end user in any way.

ucaetano 8y ago

> At home, I use Duck Duck Go. It gives good enough results but comes with a better reputation with regards to privacy. The fact that you do so, with no additional effort needed, kinda breaks the entire trust/monopoly argument, doesn't it?

jedberg 8y ago

Facebook bought Instagram because Instagram was beating them at the social network game. So it is possible to create a new social network and win. BUT the interoperability is key. I think if they just legislated that part of it, it would be a win for consumers. Maybe we can get the EU to pass some data probability laws and force Facebook and Google to share...