5 ms·

So much scripted drama while everybody involved is on the same page and wants and regulation and more censorship of FB: Facebook wants regulation for itself to

So much scripted drama while everybody involved is on the same page and wants and regulation and more censorship of FB: Facebook wants regulation for itself to kick the ladder down for future competitors, the current "whistleblowers" want it for FB because of personal idelogical leanings toward modern identity politics, the legacy media corporations want regulation applied to FB hoping that it will somehow save the former's outdated business model and the Biden administration wants it in order to manufacture consent in the face of falling popularity ratings and to keep those pesky allegations of election fraud down (except for their own allegations against the opponent).

luegen 5y ago
It's fishy indeed: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/21/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-us-intelligence/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/21/facebook-whistleblower-fr...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- erdo 5y ago
  Who is this news org, why should we trust them? A cursory look at their content suggests we shouldn't. It's easy, all you need to do is spot the term "Russiagate", in this case the "gate" is being used to suggest that Russian influence in American politics is a fake news story (which it definitely isn't, see Muller report)
  - sm4rk0 5y ago
    American politics and MSM are fake news.
  - sm4rk0 5y ago
    If you don't want to see the truth, you wouldn't see it even if it was waving in front of your eyes.
  - cyber_kinetist 5y ago
    Please comment upon the actual contents of the article rather than the "brand" of the news.
    - hairofadog 5y ago
      I dunno; I think “consider the source” is pretty good advice.
      - cyber_kinetist 5y ago
        About the Russiagate article which the previous commenter was turned off: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/09/20/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-indicted/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/09/20/with-clinton-lawyer-charg... It basically talks about how Sussman's work on the Alfa Bank story (about how there was a relationship between Trump and a Russian Bank) was accused of fabrication and was lead by the Clinton campaign, as described by research from the FBI. (You can read the judicial document in its original form here: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl...) Although the title is quite polemical and should have been toned down if it were to adhere to HN standards, I think it is a valuable news story and shouldn't be shrugged off as just "fake news".
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  I've posted that article yesterday in HN, and it was flagged immediately. Guess some people in here don't really recept well to any media that is outside of the mainstream (which in this case with FB, were all repeating the identically constructed narrative)
babuskov 5y ago
Idk, it seems to be that Facebook has become too good at targeting people and started to be used so effectively for political purposes, that parties obviously decided that it's too much risk to let them have that kind of influence without them being able to control it.
kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Do you have a citation for all these claims?
- cryptica 5y ago
  This isn't mathematics. Nobody is asking anybody to accept the statements as 100% truth. Obviously when there are incentives for people to hide the truth, it's going to be difficult to find citations. It is broadly believed within the corporate sphere that companies do this. There is even a term called 'regulatory capture'. Why else would they hire lobbyists?
_Understated_ 5y ago
I have no idea why you are being downvoted... perhaps FB zealots fear the truth. Regulation is exactly what large corporations want. Regulation prevents competition from ever getting started. What's an extra £30 million a year for regulatory compliance to someone like FB, or Google, or any billion dollar corp? It's literally zero. Nothing at all. The (insignificant) cost of doing business. For a startup? It's certain death right at the idea stage... I would put money on FB actually helping government draft regulations _against_ FB themselves knowing that they won't be financially affected by them and that they will help kill any potential competition from ever getting started.
- cryptica 5y ago
  Yeah this pretty much sums up the the corporate playbook. Build a regulatory moat which makes it impossible for startups to compete... Use the government to reframe honest entrepreneurs as criminals (who are in breach of regulations) in order to protect corporate interests. These days you can't take a crap without a license...
- dobin 5y ago
  Is this a specifically american thing, that regulations are bad? Thats exactly what FB would say. Next you tell me, that "trickle up economics" are bad, and we should try "trickle down"
  - tlb 5y ago
    Regulation tends to protect incumbents everywhere. Whether or not you consider that bad depends on how much you value progress over stability. Stability often seems fine for the first decade or too, until one day you pause to wonder why you’re still connecting to the internet using acoustic coupler modems, or paying hundreds of dollars per month for insulin.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    It is very American, and seem to see people speaking out about it more there, but I don't think it is quite limited to the US. It does go hand-in-hand with the failed thinking of trickle-down economics: In other words, conservatives use this talking point. I think it is louder in the US simply because the trust in government that you would find in, say, Norway simply doesn't exist and you get a few more "regulation in print only" there, it seems. And of course some regulations limit who does some things, but in a lot of cases, we probably wouldn't want folks that refuse to follow regulations - particularly when they deal with health and safety.

luegen 5y ago

It's fishy indeed: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/21/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-us-intelligence/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/21/facebook-whistleblower-fr...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
erdo 5y ago
Who is this news org, why should we trust them? A cursory look at their content suggests we shouldn't. It's easy, all you need to do is spot the term "Russiagate", in this case the "gate" is being used to suggest that Russian influence in American politics is a fake news story (which it definitely isn't, see Muller report)
- sm4rk0 5y ago
  American politics and MSM are fake news.
- sm4rk0 5y ago
  If you don't want to see the truth, you wouldn't see it even if it was waving in front of your eyes.
- cyber_kinetist 5y ago
  Please comment upon the actual contents of the article rather than the "brand" of the news.
  - hairofadog 5y ago
    I dunno; I think “consider the source” is pretty good advice.
    - cyber_kinetist 5y ago
      About the Russiagate article which the previous commenter was turned off: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/09/20/with-clinton-lawyer-charged-the-russiagate-scam-is-now-indicted/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/09/20/with-clinton-lawyer-charg... It basically talks about how Sussman's work on the Alfa Bank story (about how there was a relationship between Trump and a Russian Bank) was accused of fabrication and was lead by the Clinton campaign, as described by research from the FBI. (You can read the judicial document in its original form here: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl...) Although the title is quite polemical and should have been toned down if it were to adhere to HN standards, I think it is a valuable news story and shouldn't be shrugged off as just "fake news".
cyber_kinetist 5y ago
I've posted that article yesterday in HN, and it was flagged immediately. Guess some people in here don't really recept well to any media that is outside of the mainstream (which in this case with FB, were all repeating the identically constructed narrative)

babuskov 5y ago

Idk, it seems to be that Facebook has become too good at targeting people and started to be used so effectively for political purposes, that parties obviously decided that it's too much risk to let them have that kind of influence without them being able to control it.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago

Do you have a citation for all these claims?

cryptica 5y ago
This isn't mathematics. Nobody is asking anybody to accept the statements as 100% truth. Obviously when there are incentives for people to hide the truth, it's going to be difficult to find citations. It is broadly believed within the corporate sphere that companies do this. There is even a term called 'regulatory capture'. Why else would they hire lobbyists?

_Understated_ 5y ago

I have no idea why you are being downvoted... perhaps FB zealots fear the truth. Regulation is exactly what large corporations want. Regulation prevents competition from ever getting started. What's an extra £30 million a year for regulatory compliance to someone like FB, or Google, or any billion dollar corp? It's literally zero. Nothing at all. The (insignificant) cost of doing business. For a startup? It's certain death right at the idea stage... I would put money on FB actually helping government draft regulations _against_ FB themselves knowing that they won't be financially affected by them and that they will help kill any potential competition from ever getting started.

cryptica 5y ago
Yeah this pretty much sums up the the corporate playbook. Build a regulatory moat which makes it impossible for startups to compete... Use the government to reframe honest entrepreneurs as criminals (who are in breach of regulations) in order to protect corporate interests. These days you can't take a crap without a license...
dobin 5y ago
Is this a specifically american thing, that regulations are bad? Thats exactly what FB would say. Next you tell me, that "trickle up economics" are bad, and we should try "trickle down"
- tlb 5y ago
  Regulation tends to protect incumbents everywhere. Whether or not you consider that bad depends on how much you value progress over stability. Stability often seems fine for the first decade or too, until one day you pause to wonder why you’re still connecting to the internet using acoustic coupler modems, or paying hundreds of dollars per month for insulin.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  It is very American, and seem to see people speaking out about it more there, but I don't think it is quite limited to the US. It does go hand-in-hand with the failed thinking of trickle-down economics: In other words, conservatives use this talking point. I think it is louder in the US simply because the trust in government that you would find in, say, Norway simply doesn't exist and you get a few more "regulation in print only" there, it seems. And of course some regulations limit who does some things, but in a lot of cases, we probably wouldn't want folks that refuse to follow regulations - particularly when they deal with health and safety.