6 ms·

> I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. * Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do t

> I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. * Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do that much damage. * Remove safe harbor provisions on algorithmic content feeds. * Pass a transaction tax on ad auctions to discourage free-for-attention business models.

hinkley 6y ago
I recall when I was going through a bout of insomnia in college, being upset by the quality of the ads on late night TV. I had been taught about what was then known as targeted advertising, and I thought that meant that all those inane ads were being specifically targeted at insomniacs. Like they had decided I was some sort of moron who would fall for this stuff. Didn't take me too long to realize the low quality ads were simply targeting the low-quality time slots. Nothing more sinister than cheap people being cheap. But with real-time auctions, though, there are whole swaths of people whom the quality ads have decided are a waste of time, and now the hyenas can circle in to prey on everything that is left. There are some ad networks out there that try to avoid the real time auction and cross-site tracking aspects of these conventional ad networks. I don't know how successful they're being, but maybe they're on to something. Something that should be encourage by public policy.
p_j_w 6y ago
1. How do you plan on keeping them small enough? With mandatory federation and compliance with open standards, would this even be a good idea? 2. Sounds like a great way to encourage site moderators to bring down the ban hammer hard and fast.
FFRefresh 6y ago
Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals? > * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legislation look like? The internet certainly enables more 'winner takes all' type markets, so not sure how you consistently keep social networks small when everyone will naturally gravitate to those that have the best UX + network effects (there are surely other variables, just listing 2 as an example) > * Remove safe harbor provisions... What does this mean? How are algorithmic content feeds currently treated relative to non-algorithmic content feeds? How would you target the legislation to not have externalities? > * Pass a transaction tax Never heard of this, what does this mean? Who is getting taxed? Advertisers? Publishers? Website visitors? How will your proposal change incentives? What's your take on how smaller news sites are dependent on the ad model and that ad models promote websites that are open to more people (as opposed to subscription businesses which incentivize optimizing for your paying customers and giving them exactly what they want)
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  1. Not really sure I agree about "winner takes all" - Facebook bought IG, Whatsapp and dozens of other companies. That's not winning based off product superiority - it's winning based off access to financing. There are plenty of ways to stop companies from ever reaching that size - Limit M&A, limit the amount of hot money used to finance growth ahead of revenue, and impose stricter regulations on larger companies - I'm talking investigating violations and prosecuting civilly and criminally - no compliance BS. 2. I'm not going to explain the Safe Harbor provision to you. Look it up. We already have externalities - removing algorithmic feeds would take (e.g. Facebook) back to where it was in the late 2000s, where users were in control of the content they saw. The only negative externality is that Facebook and other companies would make less money of targeted ads. 3. You've never heard of a transaction tax? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you think about other times you've paid tax on a transaction, and then maybe you can come up with answers to the rest of your questions.
  - FFRefresh 6y ago
    1. Facebook already had 1 billion MAU in 2012, the year it acquired Instagram. How would you limit M&A? Won't that really hurt the startup ecosystem if you use the state to close off one of the paths to an exit? How do you propose limiting 'hot money' to finance growth ahead of revenue? Are you proposing getting rid of venture capital? 2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics. Many sites/app personalize content (aka algorithmic content feeds) for the user, based off of what will drive engagement. I understand you dislike Facebook, but if you attack Facebook for personalization, how do you not hurt everybody else that is trying to cater experiences to what their users are likely to want? 3. What's the transaction in your proposal? Who is getting taxed? There are multiple actors in the advertising system, from advertisers to ad networks to publishers to website visitors. Your glib response is a signal to me that perhaps you haven't had much in the weeds exposure to how advertising functions, and may be operating from more of a mainstream mood affiliation perspective. Which is fine, but you answered a question to someone's query for 'good ideas' for regulation.
    - 6y ago

hinkley 6y ago

I recall when I was going through a bout of insomnia in college, being upset by the quality of the ads on late night TV. I had been taught about what was then known as targeted advertising, and I thought that meant that all those inane ads were being specifically targeted at insomniacs. Like they had decided I was some sort of moron who would fall for this stuff. Didn't take me too long to realize the low quality ads were simply targeting the low-quality time slots. Nothing more sinister than cheap people being cheap. But with real-time auctions, though, there are whole swaths of people whom the quality ads have decided are a waste of time, and now the hyenas can circle in to prey on everything that is left. There are some ad networks out there that try to avoid the real time auction and cross-site tracking aspects of these conventional ad networks. I don't know how successful they're being, but maybe they're on to something. Something that should be encourage by public policy.

p_j_w 6y ago

1. How do you plan on keeping them small enough? With mandatory federation and compliance with open standards, would this even be a good idea? 2. Sounds like a great way to encourage site moderators to bring down the ban hammer hard and fast.

FFRefresh 6y ago

Could you clarify a bit more on these proposals? > * Break them up... How do you ensure that all companies in a vertical will remain small? What would the legislation look like? The internet certainly enables more 'winner takes all' type markets, so not sure how you consistently keep social networks small when everyone will naturally gravitate to those that have the best UX + network effects (there are surely other variables, just listing 2 as an example) > * Remove safe harbor provisions... What does this mean? How are algorithmic content feeds currently treated relative to non-algorithmic content feeds? How would you target the legislation to not have externalities? > * Pass a transaction tax Never heard of this, what does this mean? Who is getting taxed? Advertisers? Publishers? Website visitors? How will your proposal change incentives? What's your take on how smaller news sites are dependent on the ad model and that ad models promote websites that are open to more people (as opposed to subscription businesses which incentivize optimizing for your paying customers and giving them exactly what they want)

arrosenberg 6y ago
1. Not really sure I agree about "winner takes all" - Facebook bought IG, Whatsapp and dozens of other companies. That's not winning based off product superiority - it's winning based off access to financing. There are plenty of ways to stop companies from ever reaching that size - Limit M&A, limit the amount of hot money used to finance growth ahead of revenue, and impose stricter regulations on larger companies - I'm talking investigating violations and prosecuting civilly and criminally - no compliance BS. 2. I'm not going to explain the Safe Harbor provision to you. Look it up. We already have externalities - removing algorithmic feeds would take (e.g. Facebook) back to where it was in the late 2000s, where users were in control of the content they saw. The only negative externality is that Facebook and other companies would make less money of targeted ads. 3. You've never heard of a transaction tax? I find that hard to believe. Why don't you think about other times you've paid tax on a transaction, and then maybe you can come up with answers to the rest of your questions.
- FFRefresh 6y ago
  1. Facebook already had 1 billion MAU in 2012, the year it acquired Instagram. How would you limit M&A? Won't that really hurt the startup ecosystem if you use the state to close off one of the paths to an exit? How do you propose limiting 'hot money' to finance growth ahead of revenue? Are you proposing getting rid of venture capital? 2. I'm familiar with safe harbor provisions, but am asking you for more specifics. Many sites/app personalize content (aka algorithmic content feeds) for the user, based off of what will drive engagement. I understand you dislike Facebook, but if you attack Facebook for personalization, how do you not hurt everybody else that is trying to cater experiences to what their users are likely to want? 3. What's the transaction in your proposal? Who is getting taxed? There are multiple actors in the advertising system, from advertisers to ad networks to publishers to website visitors. Your glib response is a signal to me that perhaps you haven't had much in the weeds exposure to how advertising functions, and may be operating from more of a mainstream mood affiliation perspective. Which is fine, but you answered a question to someone's query for 'good ideas' for regulation.
  - 6y ago