4 ms·

It absolutely is and should be an option to just shut down the damn sites. We already know they have a generally negative impact on society. Why do we need th

It absolutely is and should be an option to just shut down the damn sites. We already know they have a generally negative impact on society. Why do we need them? Relative to its size Facebook's platform really doesn't do anything that we would miss besides perhaps Birthday reminders. I would however be keen to leave the messaging platforms open to avoid disrupting communication too severely. I also see some potential unintended consequences.

EpicEng 7y ago
Even if we assume that your premise is correct, under what authority do we shut them down and how do we ensure this new power won't be abused in the future?
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > under what authority do we shut them down and how do we ensure this new power won't be abused in the future? Parliaments are sovereign. Facebook violated a lawful summons by pulling a bait and switch: “McNamee's comments came as an international committee of MPs in Ottawa renewed their summons for Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg and company COO Sheryl Sandberg to appear and give evidence before them. Both ignored the first summons, choosing to send company representatives in their place.”
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    It's not a question of whether or not they can be shut down, it's whether or not they _should_. I'm in the US and am generally of the mind that the power of government should be limited as much as is reasonable in order to protect people's freedoms in the future. There is a very real danger in proposing one-off 'fixes' for every ill you see in the world as it sets a precedent which can be abused down the road. By your definition numerous media outlets could just be shut down entirely. Is that really a good thing? Do we trust the government to decide which information is and is not acceptible for us to consume? I certainly don't.
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > it's whether or not they _should_ I personally don't think they should be shut down. (Fines and potentially criminal proceedings, under contempt laws, for Zuckerberg and Sandberg would make more sense.) But they should face some consequences. Keeping all lawful options on the table is a good negotiating strategy. With respect to metastasisation, that is a concern. But fortunately there isn't a rich history of lawful companies blowing off multiple countries' Parliaments. The one-offness of the situation isn't in countries reacting, but in how complacent they've been with it all.
- jchook 7y ago
  Perhaps the Communications Act of 1934? Perhaps Congress could vote to stop Facebook if they choose, especially since it involves national security, terrorism, acts of war, international threats, etc. I don't think this counts as a new power. Remember Lavabit[1]? The executive branch forced Lavabit to provide a backdoor to read their customers' email, or pay a $5,000/day fine. They threatened to imprison Levison if he told anyone it was happening, even his lawyer. Keep in mind, we're talking about the same government that declares concentration camps legal [2], assassinates American citizens without due process [3], wiretaps nearly the entire free world [4], can shut down the entire Internet [5], and recklessly declares a state of national emergency as part of a temper tantrum [6]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_kill_switch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_kill_switch 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergency_Concerning_the_Southern_Border_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergency_Concerning_...
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> Why do we need them? Relative to its size Facebook's platform really doesn't do anything that we would miss besides perhaps Birthday reminders. Loads of business around the world no longer maintain their own websites. The only place you will find their contact information is on their Facebook pages. Sometimes those businesses have added their contact info to Google Maps, or enthusiasts have added it to OpenStreetMap, but so often you have no way of communicating with an establishment without at least visiting its Facebook page. The same can be said of many bands now. Facebook is how they get the world out about new releases and concert dates. Other sources can lag behind by weeks.
781 7y ago
Alcohol and sugary drinks also has a generally negative impact on society. Prostitution too. We should ban all of these too.
tschellenbach 7y ago
That's the narrative the media portrays these days. Couple years ago they were talking about Facebook bringing world peace. It's just writers chasing clicks.

EpicEng 7y ago

Even if we assume that your premise is correct, under what authority do we shut them down and how do we ensure this new power won't be abused in the future?

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> under what authority do we shut them down and how do we ensure this new power won't be abused in the future? Parliaments are sovereign. Facebook violated a lawful summons by pulling a bait and switch: “McNamee's comments came as an international committee of MPs in Ottawa renewed their summons for Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg and company COO Sheryl Sandberg to appear and give evidence before them. Both ignored the first summons, choosing to send company representatives in their place.”
- EpicEng 7y ago
  It's not a question of whether or not they can be shut down, it's whether or not they _should_. I'm in the US and am generally of the mind that the power of government should be limited as much as is reasonable in order to protect people's freedoms in the future. There is a very real danger in proposing one-off 'fixes' for every ill you see in the world as it sets a precedent which can be abused down the road. By your definition numerous media outlets could just be shut down entirely. Is that really a good thing? Do we trust the government to decide which information is and is not acceptible for us to consume? I certainly don't.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > it's whether or not they _should_ I personally don't think they should be shut down. (Fines and potentially criminal proceedings, under contempt laws, for Zuckerberg and Sandberg would make more sense.) But they should face some consequences. Keeping all lawful options on the table is a good negotiating strategy. With respect to metastasisation, that is a concern. But fortunately there isn't a rich history of lawful companies blowing off multiple countries' Parliaments. The one-offness of the situation isn't in countries reacting, but in how complacent they've been with it all.
jchook 7y ago
Perhaps the Communications Act of 1934? Perhaps Congress could vote to stop Facebook if they choose, especially since it involves national security, terrorism, acts of war, international threats, etc. I don't think this counts as a new power. Remember Lavabit[1]? The executive branch forced Lavabit to provide a backdoor to read their customers' email, or pay a $5,000/day fine. They threatened to imprison Levison if he told anyone it was happening, even his lawyer. Keep in mind, we're talking about the same government that declares concentration camps legal [2], assassinates American citizens without due process [3], wiretaps nearly the entire free world [4], can shut down the entire Internet [5], and recklessly declares a state of national emergency as part of a temper tantrum [6]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit#Suspension_and_gag_ord... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_kill_switch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_kill_switch 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergency_Concerning_the_Southern_Border_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergency_Concerning_...

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

> Why do we need them? Relative to its size Facebook's platform really doesn't do anything that we would miss besides perhaps Birthday reminders. Loads of business around the world no longer maintain their own websites. The only place you will find their contact information is on their Facebook pages. Sometimes those businesses have added their contact info to Google Maps, or enthusiasts have added it to OpenStreetMap, but so often you have no way of communicating with an establishment without at least visiting its Facebook page. The same can be said of many bands now. Facebook is how they get the world out about new releases and concert dates. Other sources can lag behind by weeks.

781 7y ago

Alcohol and sugary drinks also has a generally negative impact on society. Prostitution too. We should ban all of these too.

tschellenbach 7y ago

That's the narrative the media portrays these days. Couple years ago they were talking about Facebook bringing world peace. It's just writers chasing clicks.