4 ms·

Yeah, you can’t just sort of observe things from a distance and make hand-wavy statements regarding regulation. You’re not the only one to do this, of course —

by numair 5y ago

Yeah, you can’t just sort of observe things from a distance and make hand-wavy statements regarding regulation. You’re not the only one to do this, of course — it’s actually one of the Facebook’s preferred talking points for journalists and politicians, as it turns their specific problems into an “industry-wide problem” — but your position is not accurate given the specific context of the company, its strategy, its executives, and its super-voting-shareholders. What you’re saying is a bit like, “we need stronger regulations on knives or we are just going to keep having a serial killer problem.” If you don’t know the specifics of the situation — which, sorry you don’t, and simply being a user of these products or working in tech doesn’t give you any deep insight — you should try to avoid making claims that imply expertise. It’s a bit like defending the Catholic Church because you’ve read the Bible — there’s no correlation, my friend (and I didn’t choose that example randomly). You’re all over this thread defending people you don’t know, about situations about which you don’t have knowledge. A lot of people seem to do this, this playing defense for free thing, for companies once they become big ... It’s a bit weird.

Nextgrid 5y ago
> it turns their specific problems into an “industry-wide problem” Facebook says this to escape liability. I say this so that we nuke the entire industry. > What you’re saying is a bit like, “we need stronger regulations on knives or we are just going to keep having a serial killer problem.” The knife analogy doesn't really work. Knives have tons of legitimate usage, and are easy enough to manufacture that even if knives can no longer be obtained retail it will not be that hard for a serial killer to acquire one so regulation wouldn't work. Non-consensual data collection & unregulated advertising? That's not something ordinary customers benefit from and better regulation there could help curtail the toxic effects of social media platforms by making their pursuit of "engagement" unprofitable and making them convert to a paid service (where there is no longer incentive to generate engagement). > If you don’t know the specifics of the situation — which, sorry you don’t, and simply being a user of these products or working in tech doesn’t give you any deep insight — you should try to avoid making claims that imply expertise. You're welcome to enlighten me then. Let's say what you say is right and Facebook (as opposed to the current regulatory framework) is the problem and it gets killed off. What happens next? My worry is that a competitor takes over that will in time (if not right away) become equally scummy in their pursuit of profit (as the current regulatory framework allows this). Worse, that competitor could be based outside of our jurisdiction and/or have even less laws/morals to keep them in check and/or have an ulterior motive beyond just profit (TikTok?). > It’s a bit like defending [...] I am not defending anything here. I just think that solving the symptom of a disease does not cure the disease itself.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  Exactly , people are treating this as a Facebook problem when it’s really an industry problem. The elimination of Facebook does not fix the root cause of why all of this has happened and doesn’t stop a competitor from coming in and doing the Exact.Same.Thing.

by numair 5y ago

Nextgrid 5y ago

> it turns their specific problems into an “industry-wide problem” Facebook says this to escape liability. I say this so that we nuke the entire industry. > What you’re saying is a bit like, “we need stronger regulations on knives or we are just going to keep having a serial killer problem.” The knife analogy doesn't really work. Knives have tons of legitimate usage, and are easy enough to manufacture that even if knives can no longer be obtained retail it will not be that hard for a serial killer to acquire one so regulation wouldn't work. Non-consensual data collection & unregulated advertising? That's not something ordinary customers benefit from and better regulation there could help curtail the toxic effects of social media platforms by making their pursuit of "engagement" unprofitable and making them convert to a paid service (where there is no longer incentive to generate engagement). > If you don’t know the specifics of the situation — which, sorry you don’t, and simply being a user of these products or working in tech doesn’t give you any deep insight — you should try to avoid making claims that imply expertise. You're welcome to enlighten me then. Let's say what you say is right and Facebook (as opposed to the current regulatory framework) is the problem and it gets killed off. What happens next? My worry is that a competitor takes over that will in time (if not right away) become equally scummy in their pursuit of profit (as the current regulatory framework allows this). Worse, that competitor could be based outside of our jurisdiction and/or have even less laws/morals to keep them in check and/or have an ulterior motive beyond just profit (TikTok?). > It’s a bit like defending [...] I am not defending anything here. I just think that solving the symptom of a disease does not cure the disease itself.

Jcowell 5y ago
Exactly , people are treating this as a Facebook problem when it’s really an industry problem. The elimination of Facebook does not fix the root cause of why all of this has happened and doesn’t stop a competitor from coming in and doing the Exact.Same.Thing.