4 ms·

If only Facebook chose to make less money... Seriously though, their choices to run the platform the way they have were fundamentally shaped by profit and the

If only Facebook chose to make less money... Seriously though, their choices to run the platform the way they have were fundamentally shaped by profit and the stock market. The type of corporate moderation you’re suggesting doesn’t exist.

MaysonL 6y ago
Well – Craigslist and Wikipedia come to mind as counter-examples but it is rare.
- danbmil99 6y ago
  Just for the record, Craigslist is a for-profit company and makes quite a lot of money. Very different from Wikipedia
  - m463 6y ago
    > Craigslist is a for-profit company and makes quite a lot of money. I thought they just made a modest amount of money. However I believe their benefit to society is significantly higher than fb just because of R number 2. (of "reduce, reuse, recycle")
    - save_ferris 6y ago
      They grossed $694M in 2016, according to Wikipedia[0]. I think Craigslist benefits from a transparent business model that doesn’t rely on capturing and manipulating consumer data. They charge for job ads, which is a pretty straightforward model. Contrast that with the miasmic, tailored advertising business that Facebook has created. Craigslist isn’t necessarily leaving money on the table, they just operate a more transparent business that’s more closely aligned with the public good. It’s still not realistic to expect companies to not try to maximize their earnings potential, that’s like asking your favorite football team to score fewer touchdowns. Facebook as a business is fundamentally misaligned with the public good. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist
      - duskwuff 6y ago
        They charge for a couple other things, FWIW, but it's mostly commercial postings and certain other big-ticket listings (cars, real estate, services). https://www.craigslist.org/about/help/posting_fees https://www.craigslist.org/about/help/posting_fees
- geofft 6y ago
  Yeah, I think that saying that people are forced to optimize for profit and harm society in the process diminishes their personal agency. Even if you're starting a new venture, you have a lot of choice in how you do it. Wikipedia and Craigslist are great examples. Craigslist is for-profit, and Wikipedia was originally a project of Bomis, a "web portal" (those words meant things 20 years ago) that tried various things to be profitable and had a good amount of success with softcore pornography. Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying, "You know the press has this idea that I am a porn king. I really wasn't a king of anything, frankly, you know? Because at the time, when we looked at it, we were just like, 'Okay, well, this is what our customers will want, let's follow this.'" And even he, the guy peddling pictures of naked women on the internet because it's what his customers supposedly wanted, ended up spinning off Wikipedia as a non-profit and winding down Bomis. When you decide to make a company that values profits above all else, it's a choice. You cannot attribute the moral impact of that decision to the invisible hand of the market - the invisible hand cannot reach out and grab things that weren't given to it.
  - newen 6y ago
    This is like a tragedy of the commons situation where there are massive, life changing incentives for people to break the commons. You can’t run a society where you hope that all individuals will be good.

MaysonL 6y ago

Well – Craigslist and Wikipedia come to mind as counter-examples but it is rare.

danbmil99 6y ago
Just for the record, Craigslist is a for-profit company and makes quite a lot of money. Very different from Wikipedia
- m463 6y ago
  > Craigslist is a for-profit company and makes quite a lot of money. I thought they just made a modest amount of money. However I believe their benefit to society is significantly higher than fb just because of R number 2. (of "reduce, reuse, recycle")
  - save_ferris 6y ago
    They grossed $694M in 2016, according to Wikipedia[0]. I think Craigslist benefits from a transparent business model that doesn’t rely on capturing and manipulating consumer data. They charge for job ads, which is a pretty straightforward model. Contrast that with the miasmic, tailored advertising business that Facebook has created. Craigslist isn’t necessarily leaving money on the table, they just operate a more transparent business that’s more closely aligned with the public good. It’s still not realistic to expect companies to not try to maximize their earnings potential, that’s like asking your favorite football team to score fewer touchdowns. Facebook as a business is fundamentally misaligned with the public good. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslist
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      They charge for a couple other things, FWIW, but it's mostly commercial postings and certain other big-ticket listings (cars, real estate, services). https://www.craigslist.org/about/help/posting_fees https://www.craigslist.org/about/help/posting_fees
geofft 6y ago
Yeah, I think that saying that people are forced to optimize for profit and harm society in the process diminishes their personal agency. Even if you're starting a new venture, you have a lot of choice in how you do it. Wikipedia and Craigslist are great examples. Craigslist is for-profit, and Wikipedia was originally a project of Bomis, a "web portal" (those words meant things 20 years ago) that tried various things to be profitable and had a good amount of success with softcore pornography. Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying, "You know the press has this idea that I am a porn king. I really wasn't a king of anything, frankly, you know? Because at the time, when we looked at it, we were just like, 'Okay, well, this is what our customers will want, let's follow this.'" And even he, the guy peddling pictures of naked women on the internet because it's what his customers supposedly wanted, ended up spinning off Wikipedia as a non-profit and winding down Bomis. When you decide to make a company that values profits above all else, it's a choice. You cannot attribute the moral impact of that decision to the invisible hand of the market - the invisible hand cannot reach out and grab things that weren't given to it.
- newen 6y ago
  This is like a tragedy of the commons situation where there are massive, life changing incentives for people to break the commons. You can’t run a society where you hope that all individuals will be good.