5 ms·

> Zuckerberg said he had come to believe that a C.E.O. shouldn’t have complete control over the limits of our political discourse. “Maybe there are some calls t

> Zuckerberg said he had come to believe that a C.E.O. shouldn’t have complete control over the limits of our political discourse. “Maybe there are some calls that just aren’t good for the company to make by itself,” he told me. Yet another PR move on Zuckerberg's part, he is still 100% holding onto his power at Facebook. Facebook simply cannot change, because the incentives for running that kind of service don't align with instituting actual good moderation on the site. I doubt anybody is under the illusion that this so-called "oversight board" will have any impact on disinformation spread and arbitrary removals, or do anything serious in terms of policy due to the impact that would have on Zuckerberg's position. I feel like it is more of a sockpuppet created to keep as much of the blame away from Zuckerberg and his company while attempting to defuse the risk of actually meaningful regulatory protections against disinformation. As long as there is an incentive model where advertisers pay for attention and Facebook delivers it through outrage, nothing will change.

Angostura 6y ago
> Zuckerberg's part, he is still 100% holding onto his power at Facebook. Facebook simply cannot change, because the incentives for running that kind of service don't align with instituting actual good moderation on the site. So perhaps he doesn’t hold 100% of the power- you seem to be arguing that even he couldn’t change Facebook .
- JKCalhoun 6y ago
  I interpreted OP's comment to mean Zuckerberg could change Facebook but that then Facebook would wither and die.
noooooooo 6y ago
I agree that Zuckerberg doesn't have the best incentives, but his incentives are still infinitely better than those of any government because Facebook's status is built on consent rather than coercion. Decentralized and permissionless networks would be the best solution, but failing that, I'm happy to see the incumbents experimenting with different things that may improve the situation somewhat. Regulation and other forms of coercion is not a solution. Any "meaningful regulatory protections against disinformation" will no doubt become mandatory disinformation and protections against accurate information instead. Taking into consideration their past actions and terrible incentives, government officials are the last people I would trust to determine what is true or what should be published.
- thesteamboat 6y ago
  > his incentives are still infinitely better than those of any government because Facebook's status is built on consent rather than coercion. Is your position that all governance is coercive and thus inherently unethical? That seems like a philosophical position fundamentally in conflict with living in the modern world.
  - barneygale 6y ago
    It's a first-principals understanding of the world that is attractive to technically-minded people - building complex rules from simpler rules like the 'non-aggression principal'
  - noooooooo 6y ago
    Governance is not synonymous with government. All governments are coercive and unethical, but governance is fine as long as it's consensual. Facebook practice governance as well but generally only over people who have given their consent. I'm not one of those people, so Facebook has never tried to exercise authority over me. That's obviously not the case with the government that claim the area I live in as their territory.
    - thesteamboat 6y ago
      If you hold that all governments are unethical do you pay taxes, get mail, stop driving if pulled over by a policeman, etc.? Is it equally unethical for a government to provide for collective defense, collect taxes, enforce contracts, imprison people or to control borders? If you're willing to admit that there are gradations to the inherent unethicalness of government actions then it's at least conceivable to grade them on the same ethical scale as every other group. You have fundamentally the same position as someone who claims "there is no ethical consumption under Capitalism." There may be some truth to that worldview, but people have to live in the world where both governments and capitalism are the status quo. Both sentiments are broad enough to critique a large fraction of human society, and thus can be pulled out as a 'reason' for targeting any particular aspect one may instinctively dislike without having to put in the mental effort to determine why. Secondly, you say Facebook has governance only over people who have given their consent. Taking second order effects into account this is clearly not true. Facebook was named as one of the "determining" factors in the Rohingya genocide by UN Fact Finding Mission. Negative externalities exist, and in practice they can be quite common.
dredmorbius 6y ago
Leadership in many cases exists as something of an ablation shield between the public and investors or creditors. The Pharma Bro or Chainsaw Al are classic cases. In the case of founder-owners, the need is to create an alternative risk-deflection shield. As Facebook are doing here. Facebook should be utterly dissolved and destroyed.

Angostura 6y ago

> Zuckerberg's part, he is still 100% holding onto his power at Facebook. Facebook simply cannot change, because the incentives for running that kind of service don't align with instituting actual good moderation on the site. So perhaps he doesn’t hold 100% of the power- you seem to be arguing that even he couldn’t change Facebook .

JKCalhoun 6y ago
I interpreted OP's comment to mean Zuckerberg could change Facebook but that then Facebook would wither and die.

noooooooo 6y ago

I agree that Zuckerberg doesn't have the best incentives, but his incentives are still infinitely better than those of any government because Facebook's status is built on consent rather than coercion. Decentralized and permissionless networks would be the best solution, but failing that, I'm happy to see the incumbents experimenting with different things that may improve the situation somewhat. Regulation and other forms of coercion is not a solution. Any "meaningful regulatory protections against disinformation" will no doubt become mandatory disinformation and protections against accurate information instead. Taking into consideration their past actions and terrible incentives, government officials are the last people I would trust to determine what is true or what should be published.

thesteamboat 6y ago
> his incentives are still infinitely better than those of any government because Facebook's status is built on consent rather than coercion. Is your position that all governance is coercive and thus inherently unethical? That seems like a philosophical position fundamentally in conflict with living in the modern world.
- barneygale 6y ago
  It's a first-principals understanding of the world that is attractive to technically-minded people - building complex rules from simpler rules like the 'non-aggression principal'
- noooooooo 6y ago
  Governance is not synonymous with government. All governments are coercive and unethical, but governance is fine as long as it's consensual. Facebook practice governance as well but generally only over people who have given their consent. I'm not one of those people, so Facebook has never tried to exercise authority over me. That's obviously not the case with the government that claim the area I live in as their territory.
  - thesteamboat 6y ago
    If you hold that all governments are unethical do you pay taxes, get mail, stop driving if pulled over by a policeman, etc.? Is it equally unethical for a government to provide for collective defense, collect taxes, enforce contracts, imprison people or to control borders? If you're willing to admit that there are gradations to the inherent unethicalness of government actions then it's at least conceivable to grade them on the same ethical scale as every other group. You have fundamentally the same position as someone who claims "there is no ethical consumption under Capitalism." There may be some truth to that worldview, but people have to live in the world where both governments and capitalism are the status quo. Both sentiments are broad enough to critique a large fraction of human society, and thus can be pulled out as a 'reason' for targeting any particular aspect one may instinctively dislike without having to put in the mental effort to determine why. Secondly, you say Facebook has governance only over people who have given their consent. Taking second order effects into account this is clearly not true. Facebook was named as one of the "determining" factors in the Rohingya genocide by UN Fact Finding Mission. Negative externalities exist, and in practice they can be quite common.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Leadership in many cases exists as something of an ablation shield between the public and investors or creditors. The Pharma Bro or Chainsaw Al are classic cases. In the case of founder-owners, the need is to create an alternative risk-deflection shield. As Facebook are doing here. Facebook should be utterly dissolved and destroyed.