4 ms·

Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place. What

by dntrkv 6y ago

Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place. What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?

munificent 6y ago
> Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people? I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
- nindalf 6y ago
  Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
  - munificent 6y ago
    > you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Should Google's targeted advertising also be prohibited? Should Google's algorithmic filtering of content also be prohibited? Should Doubleclick/Google's surveillance practices (which almost certainly include some kind of "shadow" profile) be prohibited? Also, people have been talking about shadow profiles for at least a decade now, and yet no disgruntled FB employee has revealed all. Why do you think that is?
      - kelnos 6y ago
        Yes, Google's similar practices should also be prohibited. You ask as if it's obvious that someone would say no and show themselves to be a hypocrite, which is weird.
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        OK cool, I was interested in whether or not you were being consistent. I don't find it weird at all, I've noticed that often people get really upset about FB or GOOG doing something, while ignoring the other, so hence my questions.
        dntrkv 6y ago
        How do you define "algorithmic" filtering?
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        Yes of course? Because Facebook employees are highly paid, I imagine. The reason why that whistleblower got so much coverage is that usually all it takes to keep some quiet is to pay them off.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? I don't agree that banning social networks would be productive or even possible, but this argument doesn't make sense. People had social lives before social networking. People had friends online before social networking. Social networking is not required for these things.
- dntrkv 6y ago
  I am not concerned about hurting the poor corporation. What I am concerned about is having actual laws in place, not enforcement based on outrage. If Facebook is doing thing X, we decide we shouldn't allow thing X, we make thing X illegal. If FB continues to do thing X, we apply the law to them. We don't just dish out punishments for vague "You're hurting America" crimes. You need to define the thing you want banned, and it can't be "Facebook."

by dntrkv 6y ago

munificent 6y ago

> Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people? I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.

nindalf 6y ago
Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
- munificent 6y ago
  > you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Should Google's targeted advertising also be prohibited? Should Google's algorithmic filtering of content also be prohibited? Should Doubleclick/Google's surveillance practices (which almost certainly include some kind of "shadow" profile) be prohibited? Also, people have been talking about shadow profiles for at least a decade now, and yet no disgruntled FB employee has revealed all. Why do you think that is?
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Yes, Google's similar practices should also be prohibited. You ask as if it's obvious that someone would say no and show themselves to be a hypocrite, which is weird.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        OK cool, I was interested in whether or not you were being consistent. I don't find it weird at all, I've noticed that often people get really upset about FB or GOOG doing something, while ignoring the other, so hence my questions.
      - dntrkv 6y ago
        How do you define "algorithmic" filtering?
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      Yes of course? Because Facebook employees are highly paid, I imagine. The reason why that whistleblower got so much coverage is that usually all it takes to keep some quiet is to pay them off.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? I don't agree that banning social networks would be productive or even possible, but this argument doesn't make sense. People had social lives before social networking. People had friends online before social networking. Social networking is not required for these things.
dntrkv 6y ago
I am not concerned about hurting the poor corporation. What I am concerned about is having actual laws in place, not enforcement based on outrage. If Facebook is doing thing X, we decide we shouldn't allow thing X, we make thing X illegal. If FB continues to do thing X, we apply the law to them. We don't just dish out punishments for vague "You're hurting America" crimes. You need to define the thing you want banned, and it can't be "Facebook."