3 ms·

Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law

Yes, FB or anyone else should be punished only after violating a law written down for everyone to see in advance of the action that supposedly violated that law. The road to hell is built by ignoring the rule of law to go after whoever is "bad" in the moment. There's an ancient legal principle called "nulla poena sina legal", which means "no punishment without a law". It's the foundation of all justice. Here's a classic quote from A Man for all Seasons that helps explain: Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law? More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

streamofdigits 5y ago
I dont't disagree with the rule of law (to put it mildly) but not sure this is what is at stake here. Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis?
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis? No, of course not. But you have to articulate, in detail, what your new prohibitions are. You can't just declare people or organizations bad and punish them on the basis of their being bad without explaining what, specifically, is the conduct you're prohibiting going forward.
  - streamofdigits 5y ago
    There are people who have done precisely that (to quite excruciating detail I might add :-) with the informed legal and civics background that I could only dream of: Check [0] and her bible. It is calm, meticulous deconstruction of what is happening, why, and why it is wrong. Forming a consensus (imho this can easily span the traditional political spectrum as it affects literally everybody - its not frequently you get to see the two extremes agree on something) and moving towards a new framework that will sketch "what good looks like" is entirely possible and would come not a moment too early. The stakes are really high. This is a struggle for democracy, but also for the shape of the future economy. There are many sectors: medical, insurance, finance, education that are looking with disbelief at what is going on. if the political signal is that the Faustian pact of surveillance capitalism is irreversible the ensuing race to the bottom will be the end... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff
    - quotemstr 5y ago
      Can you summarize her policy position? The Wikipedia article doesn't list her specific recommendations. From my point of view, the elite consensus is that there should be some body of "responsible" people that decides what opinions the general public is allowed to express to a broad audience. Any idea control of this kind is totally unacceptable no matter what form it takes.
      - streamofdigits 5y ago
        Reading the book is definitely recommended. A lot of people have an intuitive feeling of how things have gotten out of control but she places the developments in context [0]. She is quite clear that "breaking up" is not a solution as it will merely create a cluster of replicas. She is basically arguing for banning the business model underpinning surveillance capitalism. There are many reviews out there, find one from a source you trust. This Harvard Business Review podcast has a summary interview ~30 min [1] I don't think the issue of controlling information flow (which is a political hot potato) has much to do with the legitimacy or not of this business model. E.g., Newspapers are obviously controlling flow, may have biases from sponsors, advertisers etc but they do not create user profiles by collecting all the private data they can get access to, they do not modify news shown based on profiles and (in any democracy) there is a wide variety of them and you can always choose which one to read. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Frontier/dp/1610395697 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Fr... [1] https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/06/surveillance-capitalism https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/06/surveillance-capitalism
danny_taco 5y ago
I agree, and the harm is already done. What we can do is legislate new laws to combat these insidious practices from facebook. Which is unlikely to occur, so the problem will persist until something breaks. And that is how it's done, not by skirting the law, but by not adjusting it to our times.

streamofdigits 5y ago

I dont't disagree with the rule of law (to put it mildly) but not sure this is what is at stake here. Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis?

quotemstr 5y ago
> Is there something nefarious if society legislates that a (upon closer examination) certain practices that were previously granted tacit or explicit approval are actually undesirable on a forward going basis? No, of course not. But you have to articulate, in detail, what your new prohibitions are. You can't just declare people or organizations bad and punish them on the basis of their being bad without explaining what, specifically, is the conduct you're prohibiting going forward.
- streamofdigits 5y ago
  There are people who have done precisely that (to quite excruciating detail I might add :-) with the informed legal and civics background that I could only dream of: Check [0] and her bible. It is calm, meticulous deconstruction of what is happening, why, and why it is wrong. Forming a consensus (imho this can easily span the traditional political spectrum as it affects literally everybody - its not frequently you get to see the two extremes agree on something) and moving towards a new framework that will sketch "what good looks like" is entirely possible and would come not a moment too early. The stakes are really high. This is a struggle for democracy, but also for the shape of the future economy. There are many sectors: medical, insurance, finance, education that are looking with disbelief at what is going on. if the political signal is that the Faustian pact of surveillance capitalism is irreversible the ensuing race to the bottom will be the end... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    Can you summarize her policy position? The Wikipedia article doesn't list her specific recommendations. From my point of view, the elite consensus is that there should be some body of "responsible" people that decides what opinions the general public is allowed to express to a broad audience. Any idea control of this kind is totally unacceptable no matter what form it takes.
    - streamofdigits 5y ago
      Reading the book is definitely recommended. A lot of people have an intuitive feeling of how things have gotten out of control but she places the developments in context [0]. She is quite clear that "breaking up" is not a solution as it will merely create a cluster of replicas. She is basically arguing for banning the business model underpinning surveillance capitalism. There are many reviews out there, find one from a source you trust. This Harvard Business Review podcast has a summary interview ~30 min [1] I don't think the issue of controlling information flow (which is a political hot potato) has much to do with the legitimacy or not of this business model. E.g., Newspapers are obviously controlling flow, may have biases from sponsors, advertisers etc but they do not create user profiles by collecting all the private data they can get access to, they do not modify news shown based on profiles and (in any democracy) there is a wide variety of them and you can always choose which one to read. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Frontier/dp/1610395697 https://www.amazon.com/Age-Surveillance-Capitalism-Future-Fr... [1] https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/06/surveillance-capitalism https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/06/surveillance-capitalism

danny_taco 5y ago

I agree, and the harm is already done. What we can do is legislate new laws to combat these insidious practices from facebook. Which is unlikely to occur, so the problem will persist until something breaks. And that is how it's done, not by skirting the law, but by not adjusting it to our times.