6 ms·

I'm not sure we should be taking the whistle-blower's policy recommendations too literally, since her recommendations about what to do are going to directly inf

I'm not sure we should be taking the whistle-blower's policy recommendations too literally, since her recommendations about what to do are going to directly influence whether people think she's a credible witness. It's much easier to say "Oh I think we should just do better" whilst also saying "And here's how facebook murders babies" rather than "We should shut down facebook". Because if you say "We should shut down facebook" when you present evidence that facebook murders babies, people will just say "Oh well you would say that, you just want to shut down facebook". I think this article misses the main way we got here today. The reason we are here today is because Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are 1 company. This should never have happened. It was totally anti-competitive. Social media will innevitably have network effects, so it kind of makes sense that you'll end up with giants. What doesn't make sense is that you then allow that giant to go around stamping on all its competitors. What is the best competition for Instagram today? Tiktok. Why is Tiktok the best competition? Because it's the one company facebook can't buy. Facebook has extended its life by acquiring any competitive threats or copying those that it couldn't. Simple traditional governance around mergers could have avoiding this situation. Social media companies will grow big through network effects, but until recently, they didn't stay big - because the natural ebb and flow of users meant interests change and different demographics want to differentiate themselves. You wouldn't need to regulate facebook if it had real competition, because its influence would be smaller and it would face real competitive pressure to improve its platform.

pixelgeek 5y ago
> You wouldn't need to regulate facebook if it had real competition And it would if the existing regulatory bodies did their jobs. But apparently they can be dodged with a truckload of political contributions. As would any future regulatory body that legislators come up with. Ask people who live downwind of a chemical plant if the EPA works.
- Phileosopher 5y ago
  I feel like this is a variation of the Two Generals Problem, but instead of it being about communication, it's about accountability: "You have many people. One of these people gains more power than the rest. They can abuse that power, so there needs to be someone to monitor that power, but _that_ person can abuse power. How do you effectively hold everyone accountable about abuses of power without requiring that absolutely everyone become a regulator to create a loop?"
  - nickff 5y ago
    I think the situation you are outlining is most aptly described by the Roman proverb: "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
    - tweetle_beetle 5y ago
      Funny how a crude joke about someone's wife liking to sleep around almost two thousand years ago gets applied to a conversation about legal frameworks and regulation of one of the most significant corporations in the 21st century world.
- geofft 5y ago
  Worth remembering that Paul Graham defended the Facebook/Instagram merger as the expected, non-malicious outcome of a healthy startup economy - see under the heading "Understand" in http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html . I'm inclined to believe that Paul Graham understands the startup economy well, and therefore that this isn't a problem unique to regulating Facebook, this is a problem that will keep happening, in many ways, if regulators / lawmakers leave the startup economy as it is.
- rektide 5y ago
  > But apparently they can be dodged with a truckload of political contributions. I like your rage. I think it's mis-targetted though. In the Reagan era, Supreme Court nominee & Nixon criminal Robert Bork got put in charge of the FTC, and re-defined Anti-Trust to only apply when consumer prices went up. Any other kind of monopoly was ok. Because of this, the FTC hasn't has a regulatory basis to manage jack nor shit for 40 years. This isn't just the typical dump-truck-loads full of money problem: this is a 4 decade old crisis of the government being unable and unwilling to govern. Cory Doctorow has many great threads on this all, but here's two: https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/10/borked/#zucked https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/10/borked/#zucked https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/06/calera/#fuck-bork https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/06/calera/#fuck-bork America needs to unwind the damage of Borkism, & start trying to regulate itself. Right now, we cannot.
drcongo 5y ago
I'm not so sure. I think real competition would just force Facebook to be even more awful - more rage, more racism, more everything that drives engagement and lets them sell ads.
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  That is an interesting topic. Does their lack of competition mean that they can push more rhetoric to get engagement or would a more reasonable competitor cause them to calm down or turn it to 11? Ultimately can you drive engagement with reasonable articles? Lots to think about there
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  That would accelerate the flight from facebook. We put up with the awful aspects of it because there are no alternatives that perform the same function in a less awful way.
jikbd 5y ago
> The reason we are here today is because Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are 1 company. This should never have happened That’s not Facebook’s fault.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  It is, though. They deliberately bought or squashed anything that could compete in their space over the years. This is anti-competitive behavior and it should have been stopped years ago.
  - dresdenfire 5y ago
    Why is buying companies anti-competitive? Pretty much every big tech company does that. 95% of exits and funding in tech would not happen if getting bought by a big company was not possible.
    - eigengrau5150 5y ago
      When companies buy other companies, they create consolidation in their respective markets. This isn't good for customers or for workers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/08/29/business-consolidation-economy/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/08/29/business...
mulmen 5y ago
Why does a whistleblower need to give any policy advice? If they have suggestions I suppose that’s fine but I think that goes beyond the responsibility of a whistleblower. All a whistleblower needs to do is… blow the whistle. We have existing mechanisms to address the problem or we can create new ones. I certainly hope nobody is waiting to blow the whistle until they have a solution.

pixelgeek 5y ago

> You wouldn't need to regulate facebook if it had real competition And it would if the existing regulatory bodies did their jobs. But apparently they can be dodged with a truckload of political contributions. As would any future regulatory body that legislators come up with. Ask people who live downwind of a chemical plant if the EPA works.

Phileosopher 5y ago
I feel like this is a variation of the Two Generals Problem, but instead of it being about communication, it's about accountability: "You have many people. One of these people gains more power than the rest. They can abuse that power, so there needs to be someone to monitor that power, but _that_ person can abuse power. How do you effectively hold everyone accountable about abuses of power without requiring that absolutely everyone become a regulator to create a loop?"
- nickff 5y ago
  I think the situation you are outlining is most aptly described by the Roman proverb: "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
  - tweetle_beetle 5y ago
    Funny how a crude joke about someone's wife liking to sleep around almost two thousand years ago gets applied to a conversation about legal frameworks and regulation of one of the most significant corporations in the 21st century world.
geofft 5y ago
Worth remembering that Paul Graham defended the Facebook/Instagram merger as the expected, non-malicious outcome of a healthy startup economy - see under the heading "Understand" in http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html . I'm inclined to believe that Paul Graham understands the startup economy well, and therefore that this isn't a problem unique to regulating Facebook, this is a problem that will keep happening, in many ways, if regulators / lawmakers leave the startup economy as it is.
rektide 5y ago
> But apparently they can be dodged with a truckload of political contributions. I like your rage. I think it's mis-targetted though. In the Reagan era, Supreme Court nominee & Nixon criminal Robert Bork got put in charge of the FTC, and re-defined Anti-Trust to only apply when consumer prices went up. Any other kind of monopoly was ok. Because of this, the FTC hasn't has a regulatory basis to manage jack nor shit for 40 years. This isn't just the typical dump-truck-loads full of money problem: this is a 4 decade old crisis of the government being unable and unwilling to govern. Cory Doctorow has many great threads on this all, but here's two: https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/10/borked/#zucked https://pluralistic.net/2020/12/10/borked/#zucked https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/06/calera/#fuck-bork https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/06/calera/#fuck-bork America needs to unwind the damage of Borkism, & start trying to regulate itself. Right now, we cannot.

drcongo 5y ago

I'm not so sure. I think real competition would just force Facebook to be even more awful - more rage, more racism, more everything that drives engagement and lets them sell ads.

pixelgeek 5y ago
That is an interesting topic. Does their lack of competition mean that they can push more rhetoric to get engagement or would a more reasonable competitor cause them to calm down or turn it to 11? Ultimately can you drive engagement with reasonable articles? Lots to think about there
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
That would accelerate the flight from facebook. We put up with the awful aspects of it because there are no alternatives that perform the same function in a less awful way.

jikbd 5y ago

> The reason we are here today is because Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram are 1 company. This should never have happened That’s not Facebook’s fault.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
It is, though. They deliberately bought or squashed anything that could compete in their space over the years. This is anti-competitive behavior and it should have been stopped years ago.
- dresdenfire 5y ago
  Why is buying companies anti-competitive? Pretty much every big tech company does that. 95% of exits and funding in tech would not happen if getting bought by a big company was not possible.
  - eigengrau5150 5y ago
    When companies buy other companies, they create consolidation in their respective markets. This isn't good for customers or for workers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/08/29/business-consolidation-economy/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/08/29/business...

mulmen 5y ago

Why does a whistleblower need to give any policy advice? If they have suggestions I suppose that’s fine but I think that goes beyond the responsibility of a whistleblower. All a whistleblower needs to do is… blow the whistle. We have existing mechanisms to address the problem or we can create new ones. I certainly hope nobody is waiting to blow the whistle until they have a solution.