3 ms·

You seem to work at FB so you might have some more insight than I do, if so please share. On the other side, I see new players arriving and proving to be compet

You seem to work at FB so you might have some more insight than I do, if so please share. On the other side, I see new players arriving and proving to be competitive because FB will be forced to take a position, if people don't like that position they won't interact with the platform. Suddenly there's a market for a different platform.

pavlov 6y ago
I’m just a video rendering code monkey, I have no particular insight into this issue. (FWIW I believe Zuckerberg is genuine in his position, but I also think he’d change it rapidly if the legal environment tilted the other way and it became a genuine business threat.) I wonder about those different platforms. They already exist — Gab simply isn’t that popular. Revoking Section 230 would expose Gab to a “Thiel vs Gawker” situation: a billionaire could sue them into extinction. That doesn’t seem desirable at all.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  I'm not a fan of Gab, but it could easily be not popular because it's offering a worse version of the current form of FB. If FB's status changed, Gab could theoretically become more popular. Not all new platform/publishers would be the equivalent of a Gawker and thus raise the ire of a billionaire. There are plenty of independent journals, magazines, blogging platforms, etc that don't get sued out of existence.
colejohnson66 6y ago
> You seem to work at FB so you might have some more insight than I do, if so please share. Please don’t make accusations of astroturfing. It’s rude and against the HN guidelines. Why? Because the majority of the time, it’s not true. I don’t work at or have any connection to Microsoft, but a week ago, I was accused of astroturfing for them because I did not agree that them open sourcing stuff is EEE.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Before making that accusation maybe check out your GP's profile. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pavlov https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pavlov

pavlov 6y ago

I’m just a video rendering code monkey, I have no particular insight into this issue. (FWIW I believe Zuckerberg is genuine in his position, but I also think he’d change it rapidly if the legal environment tilted the other way and it became a genuine business threat.) I wonder about those different platforms. They already exist — Gab simply isn’t that popular. Revoking Section 230 would expose Gab to a “Thiel vs Gawker” situation: a billionaire could sue them into extinction. That doesn’t seem desirable at all.

Avicebron 6y ago
I'm not a fan of Gab, but it could easily be not popular because it's offering a worse version of the current form of FB. If FB's status changed, Gab could theoretically become more popular. Not all new platform/publishers would be the equivalent of a Gawker and thus raise the ire of a billionaire. There are plenty of independent journals, magazines, blogging platforms, etc that don't get sued out of existence.

colejohnson66 6y ago

> You seem to work at FB so you might have some more insight than I do, if so please share. Please don’t make accusations of astroturfing. It’s rude and against the HN guidelines. Why? Because the majority of the time, it’s not true. I don’t work at or have any connection to Microsoft, but a week ago, I was accused of astroturfing for them because I did not agree that them open sourcing stuff is EEE.

klyrs 6y ago
Before making that accusation maybe check out your GP's profile. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pavlov https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pavlov