6 ms·

Remember when Facebook targeted housing ads based on race (against federal law)? Remember when Facebook conducted an experiment to manipulate teenagers' emotio

Remember when Facebook targeted housing ads based on race (against federal law)? Remember when Facebook conducted an experiment to manipulate teenagers' emotions? Remember when Facebook paid users a paltry sum to install a malicious spying VPN? And of course, the recent leak of millions of people's personal data is just the icing on the cake. This isn't even the full list of scandals Facebook has had in recent years. One after another, scandal after scandal comes out and nobody is punished and their stock price continues to soar. Facebook is too big to fail. They're part of our digital infrastructure now and need to be regulated as such. "They 'trust me'. Dumb Fucks"

seattle_spring 5y ago
Remember when every other article on HN wasn't just a repetitive complaint about Facebook?
- isoprophlex 5y ago
  Just because it's cliche doesn't make it any less true
- wyclif 5y ago
  There probably wouldn't be repetitive complaints if Facebook had to stop their scummy business practices. Zuck is essentially Blofeld in a hoodie.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  I don't know if you remember but until a decade ago we did the same with Microsoft. Everyone, including Microsofts shareholders have reason to be thankful to us today. (Although I should say I have problems turning my pitchfork and torch towards MS again if they stop behaving.)
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
    > Everyone, including Microsofts shareholders have reason to be thankful to us today. The open source community turning pitchforks on Microsoft of the 1990's and the subsequent anti-trust case was one of the worst things that ever happened to computing. Here are the results: 1) Instead of Microsoft's preferred model of personal computer first computing, we ended up with cloud first computing with all the resultant loss of privacy and control 2) Changed the tech sector from where the biggest companies sold software or hardware to end users to one where the biggest companies give away software/services to users so they can monetize them with advertising 3) Convinced all the tech companies that they desperately needed to spend money lobbying Washington in order to preserve their business. I would argue that the average computer (which was likely a PC) user of the 1990's had a lot more privacy and control over their computing than the average computer(which is likely a phone) does now.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      I don't see how this stuff is outcomes from the anti-trust case. 1) Cloud computing didn't really gain as much traction until folks started running into storage limits, which realistically was helped along by smartphones. Computing, for the average person, has changed. 2) Again, computing has changed. Some folks no longer pirate programs because free is available. Not all have ads: I'd also argue that programs are probably more available to more people because of this. I don't pay cash for many things on my phone, and I simply wouldn't. Television ads are generally more annoying and product placement in movies/shows slightly more devious. 3). Isn't this just large businesses, though? It isn't special to tech companies, nor do all of them lobby. I'd also like to add that computing in the 90's was a bit different and not as widespread: Many folks I knew simply didn't have one at home. A computer at a library, school, friend's house, or internet cafe doesn't have a lot of privacy or control either. I don't think the "control" has the same meaning for the average person as it would with most folks reading this comment here on HN, and I'm not sure it bothers most folks.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      You forget that we probably wouldn't have had Android, maybe not even iPhones. And for all the flaws of Googles management of Android I think there's a fair chance MS could have botched it even more. I mean, just one of the old MS guys was enough to more or less sink telecom giant Nokia ;-) Linux adoption on the desktop is small but rapidly rising now. If Microsoft had gotten their way back then I doubt that could have happened. Your argument seems to take for granted that Microsoft wouldn't have come up with the same or maybe even sleazier tactics. I wouldn't take that for granted.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    I'm sure all the folks who scream about politics on Reddit think they're heroes too.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      Not heroes. Not them not us. They probably just think they are speaking up against injustice. Just like we thought. We were right. I don't know enough about reddit to say much about those folks.
- mrweasel 5y ago
  It is getting repetitive, so when does someone in power say “enough” and shutdown Facebooks shady business practiceses? It should be Facebooks board, or the CEO, but neither seems to care as long as it make money. We’re at the point where I don’t understand why Facebook isn’t banned in multiple countries. Well, I know why, politicians are heavy Facebook users and are buying ads on Facebook.
fmakunbound 5y ago
At some point the convenience of sharing family pics with granny just ain’t worth this shit.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  That point was a long time ago.
skinkestek 5y ago
> Facebook is too big to fail. They're part of our digital infrastructure now and need to be regulated as such. Just don't let politicians run it. That could be even worse I'm afraid.

seattle_spring 5y ago

Remember when every other article on HN wasn't just a repetitive complaint about Facebook?

isoprophlex 5y ago
Just because it's cliche doesn't make it any less true
wyclif 5y ago
There probably wouldn't be repetitive complaints if Facebook had to stop their scummy business practices. Zuck is essentially Blofeld in a hoodie.
skinkestek 5y ago
I don't know if you remember but until a decade ago we did the same with Microsoft. Everyone, including Microsofts shareholders have reason to be thankful to us today. (Although I should say I have problems turning my pitchfork and torch towards MS again if they stop behaving.)
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  > Everyone, including Microsofts shareholders have reason to be thankful to us today. The open source community turning pitchforks on Microsoft of the 1990's and the subsequent anti-trust case was one of the worst things that ever happened to computing. Here are the results: 1) Instead of Microsoft's preferred model of personal computer first computing, we ended up with cloud first computing with all the resultant loss of privacy and control 2) Changed the tech sector from where the biggest companies sold software or hardware to end users to one where the biggest companies give away software/services to users so they can monetize them with advertising 3) Convinced all the tech companies that they desperately needed to spend money lobbying Washington in order to preserve their business. I would argue that the average computer (which was likely a PC) user of the 1990's had a lot more privacy and control over their computing than the average computer(which is likely a phone) does now.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    I don't see how this stuff is outcomes from the anti-trust case. 1) Cloud computing didn't really gain as much traction until folks started running into storage limits, which realistically was helped along by smartphones. Computing, for the average person, has changed. 2) Again, computing has changed. Some folks no longer pirate programs because free is available. Not all have ads: I'd also argue that programs are probably more available to more people because of this. I don't pay cash for many things on my phone, and I simply wouldn't. Television ads are generally more annoying and product placement in movies/shows slightly more devious. 3). Isn't this just large businesses, though? It isn't special to tech companies, nor do all of them lobby. I'd also like to add that computing in the 90's was a bit different and not as widespread: Many folks I knew simply didn't have one at home. A computer at a library, school, friend's house, or internet cafe doesn't have a lot of privacy or control either. I don't think the "control" has the same meaning for the average person as it would with most folks reading this comment here on HN, and I'm not sure it bothers most folks.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    You forget that we probably wouldn't have had Android, maybe not even iPhones. And for all the flaws of Googles management of Android I think there's a fair chance MS could have botched it even more. I mean, just one of the old MS guys was enough to more or less sink telecom giant Nokia ;-) Linux adoption on the desktop is small but rapidly rising now. If Microsoft had gotten their way back then I doubt that could have happened. Your argument seems to take for granted that Microsoft wouldn't have come up with the same or maybe even sleazier tactics. I wouldn't take that for granted.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  I'm sure all the folks who scream about politics on Reddit think they're heroes too.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Not heroes. Not them not us. They probably just think they are speaking up against injustice. Just like we thought. We were right. I don't know enough about reddit to say much about those folks.
mrweasel 5y ago
It is getting repetitive, so when does someone in power say “enough” and shutdown Facebooks shady business practiceses? It should be Facebooks board, or the CEO, but neither seems to care as long as it make money. We’re at the point where I don’t understand why Facebook isn’t banned in multiple countries. Well, I know why, politicians are heavy Facebook users and are buying ads on Facebook.

fmakunbound 5y ago

At some point the convenience of sharing family pics with granny just ain’t worth this shit.

Pfhreak 5y ago
That point was a long time ago.

skinkestek 5y ago

> Facebook is too big to fail. They're part of our digital infrastructure now and need to be regulated as such. Just don't let politicians run it. That could be even worse I'm afraid.