10 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg: The Internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

• qnsi 8y ago
  Facebook gets a lot of slack here on HN, and I share some critisism, but find this article by Zuckerberg is a step in right direction. One only hopes there is some free room for small companies from regulation, so this helpful regulation doesnt end as a moat for FB and others.
  • ryukafalz 8y ago
    >One only hopes there is some free room for small companies from regulation, so this helpful regulation doesnt end as a moat for FB and others. This is what has me worried. If regulations go as far as requiring content filtering, it would effectively cement Facebook/YouTube/etc as the dominant internet platforms, because small competitors can't afford to build those systems just to get started.
    • _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      > >One only hopes there is some free room for small companies from regulation, so this helpful regulation doesnt end as a moat for FB and others. I assume Zuckerberg is primarily interested in this for exactly that goal.
  • madrox 8y ago
    The trouble is that he has lost integrity as someone who is putting the needs of people first because of what Facebook has done. At this point, he will have a lot of opponents no matter what he says.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Did you mean to write 'Facebook gets a lot of flack'? That would seem to make more sense given the rest of the sentence.
    • qnsi 8y ago
      Sorry! Not my first language
    • croisillon 8y ago
      i wondered about it too, i imagine it comes from "cut me some slack" = "cut the criticism", hence slack=criticism
      • np_tedious 8y ago
        In this context, "slack" and "flak"/"flack" are opposites
      • AgentME 8y ago
        In the phrase "cut me some slack", the speaker is asking for more slack. It's like "give me a slice of meat" or "cut some meat for me".
        • croisillon 8y ago
          ooooooh :) I learned something thank you!
    • umvi 8y ago
      Also, it's "flak" (shortened form of German word for anti aircraft cannon) not "flack".
      • RandomInteger4 8y ago
        phlaque
      • deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Some dictionaries seem to have me believe either is correct. You’re right as far as the origin goes though.
  • SllX 8y ago
    Flack or slack? They don’t get much slack ‘round these parts and in fact get lots of flack. I just checked the article. Proposal #1 is primarily there to limit Facebook’s liability. That said, it is incompatible with the First Amendment. A government or government sponsored regulatory body deciding what is socially harmful speech is precisely what the First Amendment guards against. You would have to go with a corporate governed body on a corporate volunteer basis for it to be a meaningful proposal. Essentially, Facebook can ban le Nazis, but the US Government can’t. 2 is arguably a good proposal, but it isn’t a new proposal. To the extent that the People in Power give a damn about protecting the integrity of elections, it is to protect their own seats. When election integrity is inconvenient, it gets pushed down as a non-issue. The real goal here is to force Facebook’s ad competitors to play on the same playing field as Facebook has been pressured into to stave off further regulation. This is regulation to protect their business, and if it happens to also protect what is left of the integrity of our elections, elections that the Russians didn’t make a considerable dent in the last time around despite their best efforts, great. There are however more effective measures to defend the integrity of our elections, if we care to. 3 and 4 are both items that Facebook could roll out globally if they cared, so I’m inclined to believe that on Facebook’s political calculus, they have determined that it is politically expedient for them to come out for GDPR-style rules globally, even if they could already provide their global user base the same tools, rights and privileges afforded their European users by GDPR. Data portability is a technical challenge that is relatively easily resolved. The primary politics involved in preventing this are corporate, not governmental, and back when Web 2.0 was hot stuff, open standards were both expected and the default. Facebook played an enormous role in data portability backsliding on the web. If Facebook wants to bring out data privacy protections and data portability, then I’ll believe it when I see it. There aren’t any laws preventing this now.
    • int_19h 8y ago
      > A government or government sponsored regulatory body deciding what is socially harmful speech is precisely what the First Amendment guards against. You would have to go with a corporate governed body on a corporate volunteer basis for it to be a meaningful proposal. Essentially, Facebook can ban le Nazis, but the US Government can’t. We had something like that already, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
• anoncake 8y ago
  Freely accessible source: https://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/The-internet-needs-new-rules-Let-s-start-in-13729026.php https://www.greenwichtime.com/opinion/article/The-internet-n...
  • ezequiel-garzon 8y ago
    451 :( Come to think of it... was the HTTP code chosen after Fahrenheit 451?
    • kps 8y ago
      Yes. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7725 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7725
      • ezequiel-garzon 8y ago
        Thank you! I like the subtle way it's acknowledged in the final sentence: "Thanks also to Ray Bradbury."
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• otakucode 8y ago
  There is no such thing as harmful content. There are only harmful consumers of content. Removal of any amount or type of content can not rehabilitate these harmful consumers. For as long as they lack the motive and personal integrity to practice critical thinking on a constant and ongoing basis, no content can ever be safe from them. They will be harmed by even the most direct, fact-based, and honest content. Their interpretation of it will be wrong, driven by their motives and desire for a particular thing to be true or false, and even that honest and direct content will be called for removal. This isn't a trite or insignificant observation, I think it is the whole heart of the issue. In one audience of people, there is a madman ranting on a corner about anti-Semitism and being ignored. In another, he is raised on their shoulders and made a leader. The difference is not the availability of the 'bad content.' The difference is the willingness (some might argue ability, but I think critical thinking is such a basic and simple skill that almost all, including children, are capable of it) of the audience to practice critical thinking. And without that willingness, nothing can be done.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    This is a very narrow view of human psychology. How do you reconcile this opinion with the knowledge that copycat crime¹ occurs. One would imagine that an adult with critical thinking skills ought be able to observe that some people are easily influenced at least some of the time. Elsewise we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime
    • hyperdunc 8y ago
      We could always let governments and tech giants decide what people are allowed to see and read - there's no way that responsibility will be abused. There's no perfect answer to this problem, but censoring information just because it might reach a few unstable people is not the way to go.
      • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Regulation doesn’t necessarily mean complete censorship. One example that comes to mind is the film and TV rating system.
• gcthomas 8y ago
  Zuckerberg says that there should be a "comprehensive privacy regulation in line with the EU's GDPR", yet the first thing Facebook did was to move 1.5 billion accounts out of their data centre in Ireland to avoid having to meet the GDPRs requirements. They are also appealing the belgian decision to restrict Facebook's collection of users' and non-users' personal data across the internet. Zuckerberg is forever apologising and promising to do better, and this article is only the latest attempt to try to manage the repetitive poor news cycle that Facebook has generated over the last year.
• tus87 8y ago
  Translation: the deep state is very concerned the internet allows people to bypass the establishment media and create influence that affects the outcomes of democratic elections in ways that upset the elite.
  • eternalban 8y ago
    > democratic elections [of establishment selections]. They are not worried about the elections ..
  • duxup 8y ago
    What do you mean by "deep state"? I've seen it used so casually and often that feel like that has become a meaningless phrase that amounts to "anything established in any way, anywhere, that I don't like and I wish to add a negative connotation to those things, people, or whatever I don't like".
    • fromMars 8y ago
      There are too many code words in that post to take it seriously. What did he mean by "elite", etc.?
      • duxup 8y ago
        I see a lot of that these days, just a laundry list of code words, but they can't really explain anything...
  • inciampati 8y ago
    It always seemed to me that this story you're repeating is one spread by the criminal elite (think Murdoch and friends) to the people they rule to convince them that their enemy is exactly the group working for fairness and human rights (namely people who have devoted their life to public service).
    • JasonFruit 8y ago
      "Public service" is a heck of a euphemism. And when has the government ever cared a tinker's dam about anyone's rights? Unless the people force their governments to respect their rights, the government will publicly serve them into subjection.
• ams6110 8y ago
  Classic regulatory capture play. Create regulations so onerous that only a company with the resources of Facebook can operate under their restrictions. Lock in your dominant position. No small competitor can get a foot in the door.
  • hnthrow0693 8y ago
    I don’t think it is. First, lawmakers in several countries around the world were the first to propose these types of regulations, not Facebook. Second, Mark already acknowledged in the senate hearing that such regulations can hurt small businesses, so lawmakers need to be careful. Hard problems require complex solutions. It’s not easy for small companies to get “a foot in the door” in the space or auto industries either. Content moderation is a hard and unsolved problem — so yes, companies with more resources will have a better chance of succeeding.
    • RandomInteger4 8y ago
      Lobbyists are a thing. Before lawmakers come out publicly, there are already backroom talks and legal bribes being made.
    • wbl 8y ago
      Do we solve it for books? No. Very little if the content lawmakers are worried about is content we would censor books for.
    • ISL 8y ago
      Not all hard problems require complex solutions, unless the definition of a hard problem is one which requires a complex solution.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • drcode 8y ago
      Hello, Mr. new account that only exists to defend Zuckerberg on negative stories!
• flafla2 8y ago
  One of the most interesting parts of this column is that it is published in the Washington Post. You can't ignore the fact that this was likely run past Jeff Bezos, and Zuckerberg knows that. In almost all other circumstances, opinion columns from Mark were published on his public Facebook profile (example: "Building Global Community" [1]). The context of releasing this on WaPo is important as it represents an explicit call-to-action to the broader "community" of big tech (not just facebook.com). On the other hand, it represents an implicit approval of that call-to-action for Jeff Bezos (and thus Amazon). I'd love to hear about the behind-the-scenes politicking that led to this mode of public outreach. [1] https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-community/10154544292806634 https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-glob...
  • cycrutchfield 8y ago
    Bezos is not involved in editorial decisions at WaPo
  • ihuman 8y ago
    This post was also posted on his Facebook profile https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10107013839885441 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10107013839885441
  • duxup 8y ago
    >You can't ignore the fact that this was likely run past Jeff Bezos I'm not sure that's such a sure thing.
• marcrosoft 8y ago
  The four points being: * harmful content * election integrity * privacy * data portability I think Zuckerberg's intent is to dilute the real issue (privacy) with these other three points. FB has a bad record when it comes to privacy and they are actively taking measures against it. For example, they lobby against privacy laws [1]. They create shadow profiles and they make it difficult or impossible to delete your account. Harmful content is a tough one because you either have free speech or you don't. Judging content is a slippery slope that every generation before us has warned us about. Election integrity is a media hysteria. Nobody is forcing anyone to vote in a particular way. Data portability is always good for the consumers I don't think anyone would argue against that. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/02/facebook-global-lobbying-campaign-against-data-privacy-laws-investment https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/02/facebook-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-profiles-zuckerberg-congress-data-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17225482/facebook-shadow-...
  • _rpd 8y ago
    > data portability Making the friend/family graph portable would allow others to compete with Facebook. What's the state of the discussion on how to do this sensibly?
    • RandomInteger4 8y ago
      Technically the data is already portable. It just requires a motivated developer to create a program to parse the files that Facebook let's you download with all your Facebook information. That's not difficult.
      • megous 8y ago
        No. Last time I checked years ago, the data was incomplete, lacked all kind of context, IDs, names, your comments, was structured idiotically, even as a HTML, etc.
    • pacala 8y ago
      I can write a personal data graph crawler in a weekend. I can’t release it because Facebook army of lawyers. Maybe zuckermort should look into the mirror sometime to find the bad faith actors ruining the internet.
• BluSyn 8y ago
  Finally. I've been predicting this is exactly what FB would do eventually: ASK for regulation. Facebook could do all these things in isolation, but generally speaking this could be really bad for long-term revenue. Essentially Facebook is stuck between a rock here; big moves will satisfy their user base, but annoy their large investors. On the other hand, doing nothing will harm users in the long run, but probably they could generate plenty of revenue in the process, so share holders would encourage this. Additionally if Facebook did this on their own, but other platforms are not subject to the same restrictions, they are at a huge competitive disadvantage. I think this is the key value in broad government rules. Regulation here is both good for users and good for FB (and other platforms) in the long run. They can protect their users without having to explain to investors why they aren't just going straight for profits, because they will be bound by the rules established by regulation. So in the end, FB should WANT regulation, because it's better for them in the long-run. I'm glad to see Mark appears to have finally realized this.
  • humanrebar 8y ago
    I think you need to account for the regulatory capture problem. I don't see how more regulations could be bad for Facebook as long as it's not broken up or banned outright.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• mindslight 8y ago
  Hahaha. I want to just blissfully assume this story was accidentally made live two days early. April Fools! The Internet is doing just fine. It's these paperclip/engagement maximizing websites and crack-apps that are a problem. And the founder of one of the largest ones of these, after having built surveillance profiles on everybody, right as he's tightening the noose of censorship, is telling us that ambient "new rules" are needed now? Give me a break - Zuckerberg chose profitability over credibility a long time ago. How about this - any rules that Zuckerberg thinks are "needed" can be simply tried by Faceboot itself. Then we can see if they actually fix the mess he's had a large part in creating, whether a different approach may be necessary, or whether the resulting environment ends up too draconian. This approach is blatantly obvious, but he's taken to lobbying rather than doing. So the actual question is what exactly is he trying to sell us on?
  • return0 8y ago
    yeah i found the equalization of the internet with social media weird too
• mindgam3 8y ago
  The guy who broke every single rule in his ruthless conquest of the internet is now asking for new rules. You have to admire the sheer audacity of this play. It does make sense though. He can finally see the tide of public opinion turning against him. Facebook's business metrics will be fine for a while but the pace at which they are losing people's trust is increasing. He needed to make a grand statement now while there are still large swaths of the population that view him as somewhat credible. [Edit] Also note the timing. This op-ed comes literally one day after Facebook made headlines for "mistakenly deleting" a bunch of Zuckerberg's early posts, including all his posts from 2007-2008. Which is completely absurd on the face of it. (Yesterday's HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19527200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19527200) Luckily, one way to ensure people don't ask too many questions about this story is to make some new headlines. Sure enough, google news is linking yesterday's story and today's post under the same "Full Coverage" page. As I write this, the "mistaken deletion" story is indeed getting buried under the avalanche of new coverage: https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWpZMnRiaWpZQU1FVEd0bzlGbWVvSFZLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZj...
  • megous 8y ago
    I think, he asks for the rules himself in order to attempt to control what's comming.
    • koboll 8y ago
      Yes. Of course he wants new standards set, as long as he gets a hand in crafting them. Much better than Congress imposing them on him.
  • system2 8y ago
    I think Zuckerberg is just helping the internet to learn and evolve. Without his evil products, we wouldn't understand the psychological harm of the internet. These will clear up in the next 5-10 years.
    • 8y ago
• aestetix 8y ago
  "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg-softens-stance-on-real-identity/?doing_wp_cron=1553980868.3785629272460937500000 http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...
  • Barrin92 8y ago
    I agree with Mark as far as social networks are concerned. The 'social' part of the name is important, and social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake. Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.
    • humanrebar 8y ago
      > ...social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake... Depends on what you mean by "function". Enjoying cat photos or playing a round of a video game doesn't take any stake at all.
    • int_19h 8y ago
      But in social networks IRL, it doesn't really work that way - because real life bubbles mostly don't intersect, it's as if the person had a separate identity in each. Online social media effectively pushes all the bubbles together, which transforms accountability into witch hunts, where a singular misstep is quickly propagated and results in outrage mobs across all the bubbles. Thus, the scope of social ostracism is rarely proportionate to the transgression.
      • mindslight 8y ago
        Very well put! I don't think I had quite connected the two that far. It's not even because the person actually used their real name while "transgressing", but because there's usually enough other real name metadata laying around to create an expectation that anyone can be doxxed. This is a great concrete example of a rule that Zuckerberg himself worked to promulgate, and is presently causing real ongoing harm.
• return0 8y ago
  Smart. "The ball is on your court, governments. Never again will you be able to blame facebook with impunity." FB doesnt stand to lose anything from regulation.
  • dbuser99 8y ago
    Exactly. Facebook strategy is always let's generalize the problem so that our competitors are also affected, this way we can dilute the discussion, change the narrative (and also end up doing nothing concrete).
• hesk 8y ago
  Let's address these one by one. Data portability is kinda useless if all your contacts are on a single network. What we really need are federated social networks. If Facebook loves the GDPR so much why did they move all non-EU users out of its scope when it came into force? A simple fix to get rid of targeted political ads would be to scrap the ad network altogether. Of course, this is anathema to Facebook because they would stop making money. Finally, the problem with harmful speech is not that there are multiple services but that the definition of harmful speech differs around the world. What good are independent bodies in the US that regulate Facebook when other countries want different standards?
  • cjhopman 8y ago
    > What we really need are federated social networks. If you care about privacy and how your data is used and who has access to it, federated networks are probably the worst. You do get some benefits for the loss of those things, though.
  • return0 8y ago
    > your contacts are on a single network. What we really need are federated social networks. the first enables the second (and iirc facebook has generaly been quite generous with exporting data) > why did they move all non-EU users "duh, because the frameworks were not harmonized"
• smhenderson 8y ago
  F*ck MZ. He is the last person I want advice from on making the Internet better. FB is part of the problem and I have little to no hope they will ever be part of the solution.
  • beenBoutIT 8y ago
    Zuckerberg is a rational actor that's smart enough to know that he's not going to want any knee-jerk solution put together by idiot politicians. I'm confident that he doesn't want FB being permanently hobbled by laws or acts of Congress.
    • quadrangle 8y ago
      He's a rational actor who also somehow doesn't actually get it in a broad sense. Consider Kara Swisher's interview with him on Recode Decode… or Doug Rushkoff (Team Human book/podcast etc) wondered publicly if part of the problem was how Zuck dropped out of college. Rushkoff speculated about all these deeper philosophical, economic, political, humanism, etc. courses that might have got Zuck to actually get a more mature perspective instead of basically going right from adolescent snarky asshole to just applying that maturity level (albeit with a lot of intelligence) to his business. He's rational in a sense, but he very well might not have ever stepped back far enough to really consider broader perspectives with an open mind, even as he reads and hears concerns. He probably reads them all with some strategic/tactical mindset that blocks him from truly getting the point.
      • in_hindsight 8y ago
        Zuck may not be the role model when for tech theorists, but Rushkoff is just empty - that’s coming from hearing him talk and answer questions live
        • quadrangle 8y ago
          or maybe you just didn't get what Rushkoff was saying, the way I'm describing Zuck not really getting what Kara Swisher was saying.
• malvosenior 8y ago
  "I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators." Translation: I want regulatory capture so no startup can ever compete with Facebook, ever.
• ehosca 8y ago
  rule #1. Thou shall not buy/sell user information.
  • return0 8y ago
    the internet is entierly about transferring information, which ultimately comes from humans
• eveningcoffee 8y ago
  Mark Zuckerberg is not somebody who should dictate our behavior.
• runciblespoon 8y ago
  “I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators. By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what’s best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms.” My irony just exploded. My solution is to say goodby to your Facebook “friends”, switch off the computer and go outside and socialize with real people. Yea, I know you can't unfriend people when they annoy you, but that's a small price to engage in a real social life.
• internet_user 8y ago
  Paywall. Did not read.
• danmg 8y ago
  >So we’re creating an independent body so people can appeal our decisions. We’re also working with governments, including French officials, on ensuring the effectiveness of content review systems. So content posted online should be moderated by the government. Fuck Zuck. He's advocating for the Chinese model for the entire world.
• serf 8y ago
  "Jam the door shut behind you." strategies employed by even the earliest monopolists and lobbyists in the US. Or, in other words : "Let's regulate the loopholes that we used for success so as to diminish the opportunity for competition to arise in the same sector." I don't think I expected anything different. Without choosing sides, I have to say that it all sounds very corporate, and I didn't expect anything else from him.
  • cjhopman 8y ago
    Yep! If a politician were proposing such regulations, we'd welcome her as a guardian of the people. But fuckin A man, this is mark zuckerberg proposing these things. He's a damn snake.
• sodosopa 8y ago
  Honestly, Zuck or Facebook shouldn't be the ones defining rules for anyone. They have a horrendous track record with existing laws.
• system2 8y ago
  This crappy website doesn't let me use my adblocker.
• golemiprague 8y ago
  I prefer the rules laid out by people i voted for, at least I can vote them out if they screw up.
• sriku 8y ago
  Part of this is a clear stab at plain adulthood - trying to define "harmful content" is just being patronizing. An adult in the eyes of law is someone responsible for their own mind. Would trying to convince people of the existence of a god in the absence of whatever form of evidence deemed necessary to do that count as "harmful content"? In a democracy, you want the thinking at the top to reflect the thinking at the bottom - I.e. the adults of a country must be the ones making the rules. What that thinking must be must not be up to those in power to decide .. unless people want that. This has so many tangled loops that no single programmer or one trained in logic is equipped with the skills to provide good "solutions" with full understanding of long term consequences. A good book to read about the possible cognitive failures of highly "educated" people is "The logic of failure" by Dietrich Dorner. In the case of FB, I think the illusory privacy of a personal network combined with the ability to centrally target these personal networks from the outside has been a mixing of gunpowder and fire. Will FB stop all targeted ads during an election? Also, can we have less ad hominem attacks on Mark here please? It is harmful content for the mind, detracts from discussing the points he makes charitably, and unfairly spreads bias against him. (Ha!)
  • Nasrudith 8y ago
    Harmful content itself is a notion so dangerously vague and exploitable that you should treat anyone who proposes censoring it as a wannabe dictator. There has been a lot of evil committed in the name of 'stopping harmful content'. Civil War veterans, maimed from the war were made to not appear in public from 'ugly laws' because of bullshit religious pseudoscience about maternal impression would cause birth defects. Women wearing pants is 'harmful content' because it 'corrupts the morals'. Dissent against corrupt powers is 'harmful content' to 'public order'. Given the myriad abuses I would recommend inverting Hanlon's razor and assume they know exactly what they are doing until proven that they really are that stupid.
• ravenstine 8y ago
  The internet doesn't need more rules, it needs less centralization. Mark Zuckerberg wants more rules because his product doesn't scale in the free market. Such a centralized form of communication can only regulate its content via draconian policy or overzealous algorithms, which ironically turn it into a platform that is hardly worth using. People liked Facebook because it had fun stuff on it. When you make your platform not fun, and on top of that you are exposed over and over again for being full of shit, people stop showing up. Mark Zuckerberg, go away. The problem isn't the internet, but people like you. Not that you will take that to heart at this point, but maybe others will figure you out the more we talk about you openly and outside of your crumbling castle.
  • cjhopman 8y ago
    > it needs less centralization That's a nice sounding platitude. It'd be fucking terrible for privacy and data protection, though.
    • cjhopman 8y ago
      Not that it doesn't have it's benefits, though. It's just that anytime someone proposes it as a panacea, I feel they must be being either disingenuous or they just completely don't understand what they're talking about.
    • ravenstine 8y ago
      I didn't say complete decentralization, just less centralization than where we are heading. I am not even talking decentralized servers here, just a greater variety of choices with more anonymity. I don't see how that is any less secure than trusting Zuckerberg or Google.
• moogly 8y ago
  This man... This man is dangerous. I am uncertain if he's more powerful as the head-of-the-snake of Facebook, or as a politician, the arena of which he seems to be poised to enter.
• SrslyJosh 8y ago
  Great idea, Mark! 1. Nobody listens to anything Zuckerberg says. 2. Regulate social media platforms with >1M users. Require that they support federation through open standards with published, open-source reference implementations of all required software. 3. Enact EU-style privacy protections, with the explicit goal of destroying the tracking/surveillance industry, both on the net and off. 4. Require that service providers, regardless of size(1), keep hate speech off their platforms. This includes calls for the establishment of ethnostates and other speech that stops short of literal calls for genocide but that has an obvious, well-established trajectory in that direction. (1) This may not be entirely practical, but it's a place to start. Also, the definition of "service provider" may be tricky to establish.
  • sadris 8y ago
    > Require that service providers, regardless of size(1), keep hate speech off their platforms. This includes calls for the establishment of ethnostates Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Now how can your proposed policy reconcile this?
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• FailMore 8y ago
  I don't know how to think about FB and these issues. To grow platforms to the scale that FB has requires long term thinking which I think FB showed throughout (curtailing annoying notifications - e.g. Zynga games spam - which might have looked like 'improved engagement'). Social media is brand new to humanity and companies of all types have traditionally done pretty shitty things to make a buck (for example, in the mining industry). FB is a company where people express themselves - that's quite a new thing! And FB is learning that we need to trust it. I don't think what they are doing is disingenuous, they are too clever for that. Though they are getting beat up a lot right now, in the long run it's probably for the good of the company - learning the hard way. (I own FB shares.)
• InTheArena 8y ago
  It's a brilliant cynical play by Mark Zuckerberg. First of all, he knows that there is no universe in which the United States government could legally enforce the same global standards of speech as China (Taiwan, Tibet, Muslims, Churches are all verboten) or even Germany (where Mein Kampf has been illegal until the last two years) Second, this proposal It also would put speech enforcement into the hands of FAANG, and we can ask James Damore how tolerant google is of speech that differs from their founders personal beliefs or that detracts from their profits. He's open to GDPR, but only if the same standards work everywhere, and only if it shuts down everyone who doesn't have Facebook's capabilities to adhere and lobby against laws. Of course, the focus isn't on minimizing data, but rather making sure that data can flow cleanly between the monopolists.
• Cypher 8y ago
  Rule #1 no marks allowed.
• gopher2 8y ago
  Seem like as good a starting point for a discussion as anything, although you have to wonder what set of policies the Facebook-is-literally-cancer crowd would actually be happy with. As summarized by the BBC, calling for the following things: * Common rules that all social media sites need to adhere to, enforced by third-party bodies, to control the spread of harmful content * All major tech companies to release a transparency report every three months, to put it on a par with financial reporting * Stronger laws around the world to protect the integrity of elections, with common standards for all websites to identify political actors * Laws that not only apply to candidates and elections, but also other "divisive political issues", and for laws to apply outside of official campaign periods * New industry-wide standards to control how political campaigns use data to target voters online * More countries to adopt privacy laws like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force last year * A "common global framework" that means these laws are all standardised globally, rather than being substantially different from country to country * Clear rules about who's responsible for protecting people's data when they move it from one service to another
• lgleason 8y ago
  People in the know here, who are saying not to trust was Zuck is saying should make it a point to make sure that their elected reps understand why listening to him is a bad idea. A lot of politicians are clueless when it comes to technology and could easily buy this hook line and sinker.
• 420codebro 8y ago
  Mark, how about you KYS (kill yourself)? Fuck off, trash.
• maxhedrome 8y ago
  I can’t tell where the government puppet his ass begins, and where the robot ends.
  • dang 8y ago
    We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• ourmandave 8y ago
  Apropos to nothing, here's a paper from 2005 about Big Tobacco wanting the government to regulate it, titled: Understanding Philip Morris’s pursuit of US government regulation of tobacco https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/3/193.short https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/3/193.short Cause hey, if you're going to get regulated, you might as well write the rules yourself.
• disposablename 8y ago
  Go fuck a hat Zuck, you're the last person who should be in charge of the Internet.
  • dang 8y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We've had to ask you this before, and eventually ban accounts that keep doing this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• raymondgh 8y ago
  Zuck still wants platforms to control the judgement and censorship of content. I agree this content should be the responsibility and liability of every so-called “platform” that wants to profit off our communication as people — but an ideal platform should NOT be censored at the network level. I want to live in a world where Facebook the company can’t be blamed for people voting one way or another, and I think this is most possible in a world where our most popular communication platform is not a for-profit corporation. Content consumers should have full control over self-censorship and there should be no other interference (parents would control what children access). Maybe Mastodon is taking us in the right direction. We need the tools and literacy discover, judge, and trust content ourselves. Taking that responsibility away from individuals also takes that power away from us. Zuck is right that we need new rules — rules that prevent orgs like Facebook from taking over the internet, not rules that entrench Facebook as our manager of internet content.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• effnorwood 8y ago
  Wrong
• frotak 8y ago
  > a common global framework ....will ensure that the Internet does not get fractured, entrepreneurs can build products that serve everyone, and everyone gets the same protections. Homogeneity favors business but does not foster independent or challenging thought. Converging on a "baseline" common set of standards for "harmful" speech and what constitutes "privacy" is only going to reach the lowest common denominator. Let people opt in to the level of control and sanitization that they want, but do not apply global restrictions without opt-out.
• jayess 8y ago
  Am I the only one that is just annoyed at the tone and language of everything he writes? The guy doesn't seem to have a soul.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
• rdxm 8y ago
  this could be the last person on the planet I want to hear from on the topic of the "internet needs new rules" justsayin....
• WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
  A classic big business strategy. If a company feels threaten with regulations then they work towards making the regulations benefitial to them. Also regulations make it harder for small comptitors to start so if you have favorable regulations then you forestall competition. Sounds to me that he'll be sounding like an advocate for the public from now on. We need to dought him more than ever.
• kerng 8y ago
  Zuckerberg seems to like GDPR and wants more of it, but at the same time Facebook moved accounts (some 1.5 billion) out of their Ireland datacenter to ensure they aren't held to EU privacy standards. I haven't seen a leader (of a company) or CEO being so obviously ingenuine, its worrisome. I am not sure if he really believes his own words at this point or if he realized the ship hit the iceberg and he is now frantically trying to safe it but the long, painful submersion is inevitable... and he knows it too. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-...
• duado 8y ago
  Good to see Zuck admit loss in a couple of these issues. Now it’s up to the regulators to take the ball to the net.
• in_hindsight 8y ago
  How could one measure the negative impact of Facebook on the scoiety? However narrowed down the definition of society was
• kbos87 8y ago
  Mark Zuckerberg, you apparently don’t realize how far you’ve fallen. The best thing you could possibly do right now is to stay quiet and out of the way, not try to interject your opinions into politics or the future of tech. At the very least, it would be in your best interests if you pretended not to have a voice or a stake in where some of these decisions go.
• drivingmenuts 8y ago
  Color me surprised that he only figured it out after a few billion dollars.
• ohum 8y ago
  If Mark Zuckerberg had the best interest of other people, like, all of humanity and the world writ large, in mind, I think it would probably be apparent. Rather, it actually appears as though he is being intentionally deceitful. Perhaps his rationale is based on some measured or calculated outcome, maybe he actually thinks he's doing some good in the world. Hopefully his intention is positive! Or, maybe he is beholden to investors. He seems to be a fool with power, not someone with anything meaningful to say. Is he a classic case of the old adage: "absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Platform! Graph! Stream!, and, abuse people for profit!! Are Facebook/Insta/Wechat/etc. good for the long term prosperity of humanity? I would argue that the answer is a hard "no", and I think there's ample evidence. If he were a noble person, he'd shut his harmful systems down. Shame on Mark Zuckerberg. History will not remember him kindly.
  • cjhopman 8y ago
    Oh please, what could he possibly say or do that would satisfy you.
• wdr1 8y ago
  "Finally, regulation should guarantee the principle of data portability. If you share data with one service, you should be able to move it to another. This gives people choice and enables developers to innovate and compete." Facebook blocks you exporting your contacts, to prevent you from taking your social network elsewhere.
• kumarvvr 8y ago
  Why would any one even listen to MZ now? I would listen to him and his company when it comes to computational tech stuff. But that's it. Privacy policy, protocols, rules, process, identity and what not are strictly off limits. Also, if MZ says something ought to be done in this way, I would give a serious look at the advantages of not doing it that way.
• Bud 8y ago
  Let's listen carefully to what Zuck says he wants, and then do the exact opposite.
• shdh 8y ago
  I bet the deleted profile posts countered some of these points
• aogaili 8y ago
  Well, that's beautiful strategy.. Start dictating rules to government so they stop harassing you, make it even harder for other competitors and as a bonus be the hero in the eye of the public. All hail our digital emperor!
• techsin101 8y ago
  When company is young it breaks rules, hate rules. When it becomes big it wants more and more regulations. It builds a regulatory fence around it, entry barrier becomes harder and we get capitalism borne leech that swallows all potential progress. Not just that this proposal sounds like it will do two things. First hurt anonymity. Second, give governments first seats to censorship. Not they can't do that already but none every video, post will be under scrutiny from get go not when it's viral. Very much like YouTube dmca system implemented by Google.
• Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  Always do the opposite of what Zuckerberg says.
• 3xblah 8y ago
  "The rules governing the Internet allowed a generation of entrepreneurs to build services that changed the world and created a lot of value in people's lives." Shouldn't "generation" be plural? It seems like he is being myopic, ignoring other generations of "entrepreneurs" that built the infrastructure upon which these "services" can run.
• nonsince 8y ago
  When owners of monopolies call for greater regulation, you know that they have the maintenance of that monopoly in mind and not the good of the people
• vixen99 8y ago
  On the net, not to have other identities available for use under certain circumstances, is really dumb but their use is definitely other than useful for certain business models.
• blunderkid 8y ago
  Harmful content as in all that vanity driven public posts by otherwise normal humans. Wait who specializes in that?
• mateodelnorte 8y ago
  Zuckerberg and facebook are just lobbying for government to take responsibility for the things that they, as civilians, and Facebook as a public corporation are responsible for – not screwing up so many people's lives that the aggregate turns into a societal problem. The intention here is to create legal precedent as a shield against future prosecution. If the government mandates that only it is powerful enough to stop these problems, then how could we have stopped them?! This is when you sue, hard.
• smsm42 8y ago
  So, when I was worried about Facebook censoring speech, I was told "well, this is a private company, you don't like these policies, you can make your speech somewhere else". Now what Zuckerberg is proposing is: "Internet companies should be accountable for enforcing standards on harmful content.". This means no company can host anything government decided is "hate speech". And if you think he just aims for voluntary compliance - no, "Regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum." Regulation means government setting what "harmful content" is, and forcing platforms to remove it. And yes, "hate speech" is very much included. Moreover, the providers should be mandated to report to the government how efficient they are in suppressing speech: "Facebook already publishes transparency reports on how effectively we’re removing harmful content. I believe every major Internet service should do this quarterly, because it’s just as important as financial reporting." Anybody wants to tell me I am still too paranoid when I think Zuckerberg and likes want to destroy free speech on the internet and turn it into a platform controlled and policed by major providers, where speech not approved by them and the government would be suppressed? That article certainly confirms every suspicion I had. It's no longer "you don't like FB censorship, find yourself another platform". It's "now that we built censorship in FB, look how nice it is - why not have the government use it as a model to impose it on the rest of the internet?"