4 ms·

So he wants all the benefits of being a monopolistic platform without any of the responsibilities and he wants all the benefits of being a publisher without any

So he wants all the benefits of being a monopolistic platform without any of the responsibilities and he wants all the benefits of being a publisher without any of the responsibilities. Zuckerburg wants to eat his cake and have it too. Letting facebook be part telco and part newspaper would make it the greatest propaganda machine in human history - one that is controlled by one person. Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon.

CameronNemo 7y ago
Are we just going to pretend that telcos are not heavily entrenched in the entertainment, media, and content publishing industries? The difference with Zuckerberg is that he is so brazen about the conflict of interest. Goes to show that our antitrust laws are a joke and not taken seriously by anyone in the industry.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mlb_hn 7y ago
Is he wrong? Like a telco, Facebook allows people to communicate with one another without going through another intermediary. However, it's not one-to-one like your phone, it's one-to-many. Like a newspaper the messages are broadcast out to everyone that's subscribed to receive them. However, there's limited editorial control by Facebook (except for content breaching their policies). If we thought of Facebook as a glorified listserv with a pretty UI (and a bunch of tracking cookies and injected ads) would it still seem like it should be treated as a publisher?
- celim307 7y ago
  I’d say Facebook does much more than have limited editorial control. They dictate what you see, malicious Intent or not
  - mlb_hn 7y ago
    What do you mean by dictate what you see? Aside from the sponsored content/ads, isn't it just a prioritized queue of what your Facebook friends posted?
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      Prioritized by Facebook
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  You're asking questions which nobody should care about, which goes to show how effective it is to make weird pointless statements like the ones Zuckerburg is making. Placing Facebook in a category is a pointless exercise. The questions that matter are: 1. How is Facebook harming people? 2. How can we stop Facebook from harming people?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nikofeyn 7y ago
> Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon. not gonna happen in the u.s. the u.s. government has 99% removed themselves from anti-trust deliberations. i suspect the government is deeply benefiting from facebook's data. in other words, they care about keeping it around. and in many countries, facebook is the internet, consisting of both user facing applications and the backbone.
lightgreen 7y ago
> Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon After living long time in a country where “ban it” is the answer to all the problems (drugs, child abuse, election interference, terrorism, name it) (USSR, and then recent Putin’s Russia) I’m deeply worried about western voters seriously consider banning the solution to all the problems. If you don’t like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, just make another one, better, safer, fairer. Split it if you consider it a monopoly. (I’d personally prefer Apple to stop advertising their streaming service using their devices). Don’t open the door of government censorship. Once opened that door is very hard to close.

CameronNemo 7y ago

Are we just going to pretend that telcos are not heavily entrenched in the entertainment, media, and content publishing industries? The difference with Zuckerberg is that he is so brazen about the conflict of interest. Goes to show that our antitrust laws are a joke and not taken seriously by anyone in the industry.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mlb_hn 7y ago

Is he wrong? Like a telco, Facebook allows people to communicate with one another without going through another intermediary. However, it's not one-to-one like your phone, it's one-to-many. Like a newspaper the messages are broadcast out to everyone that's subscribed to receive them. However, there's limited editorial control by Facebook (except for content breaching their policies). If we thought of Facebook as a glorified listserv with a pretty UI (and a bunch of tracking cookies and injected ads) would it still seem like it should be treated as a publisher?

celim307 7y ago
I’d say Facebook does much more than have limited editorial control. They dictate what you see, malicious Intent or not
- mlb_hn 7y ago
  What do you mean by dictate what you see? Aside from the sponsored content/ads, isn't it just a prioritized queue of what your Facebook friends posted?
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Prioritized by Facebook
kerkeslager 7y ago
You're asking questions which nobody should care about, which goes to show how effective it is to make weird pointless statements like the ones Zuckerburg is making. Placing Facebook in a category is a pointless exercise. The questions that matter are: 1. How is Facebook harming people? 2. How can we stop Facebook from harming people?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nikofeyn 7y ago

> Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon. not gonna happen in the u.s. the u.s. government has 99% removed themselves from anti-trust deliberations. i suspect the government is deeply benefiting from facebook's data. in other words, they care about keeping it around. and in many countries, facebook is the internet, consisting of both user facing applications and the backbone.

lightgreen 7y ago

> Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon After living long time in a country where “ban it” is the answer to all the problems (drugs, child abuse, election interference, terrorism, name it) (USSR, and then recent Putin’s Russia) I’m deeply worried about western voters seriously consider banning the solution to all the problems. If you don’t like Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, just make another one, better, safer, fairer. Split it if you consider it a monopoly. (I’d personally prefer Apple to stop advertising their streaming service using their devices). Don’t open the door of government censorship. Once opened that door is very hard to close.