3 ms·

I think one of the big sticking points of the problem is the challenge of power represents innately. It is very difficult to have an exceptional steward of pow

I think one of the big sticking points of the problem is the challenge of power represents innately. It is very difficult to have an exceptional steward of power over long time periods. The government has done a poor job, individuals have done a poor job, crowdsourcing responsibility has done a poor job, corporations have done a poor job. I am not trying to throw my hands up in defeat but pointing to an intransigent problem that is not easily fixable however simple every side of the argument tries to frame it and why they should be the arbiters of power/control. I understand the reluctance of any individual or company to hand over a large portion of control to a government or other community that doesn't have a track record - it is a fraught situation.

bostonsre 5y ago
Yes, democratic governments have many drawbacks around regulation but aren't they the least bad choice we have in a situation like facebook? There is no governance beyond zuckerberg currently and he has proven that he is aligned with zuckerberg and not society. Continuing with the status quo and doing nothing does not seem like a good idea to me.
- disgruntledphd2 5y ago
  I mean, he's been pretty open about his goals and moral code for a while now. The entire company was built on the assumption that being connected to as many people as possible is net good. You can probably argue that he's wrong on this, but it's hard to say that he just cares about himself.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    I doubt it, but I guess its possible that is his only true north. If it is, he is going about it in a Machiavellian or Caesar like manner where he does not care about the impact he has while attaining those goals. But I also think it's possible that his actions are those of someone who is power hungry and does not care about what happens in his wake.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      > If it is, he is going about it in a Machiavellian or Caesar like manner The dude is a classics nerd, and supposedly a bunch of the original FB mottos were in Latin (Fortune Favours the Bold, at least). That isn't surprising to me, at least.
adventured 5y ago
There is an excellent, obvious solution. And it's the one Facebook refuses to consider because it's a large negative economically. Give users a lot more control. Over their feeds. Over what they receive or not. How they receive it. Alternatively, abolish the feeds entirely. Make people seek out updates by other users manually. It's time consuming, it drastically slows down the reaction-agitation cycle. People then focus on consuming only what's most important to them to a far greater degree, as their time is limited. Facebook moved away from that early approach by intention to spur time-on-platform, consumption, engagement. In the offline space you have a small number of actual friends, a small number of people you can actually keep up with, because of time constraints. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. It keeps people focused on what's most important to them. Facebook seeks to generate the opposite outcome, they want max engagement and consumption, so now you've got two thousand fake friends, and two hundred more relevant people within those two thousand fake friends that you receive updates from on a daily or weekly basis. That's insane. There's no other good way to put, it's insanity. It's bullshit. It's fake, it's inhuman. That mass consumption of content, that the feed/wall was built to accomplish, how much of it matters to the end user? I think the answer is very little. Put it back into the user's hands to seek out profile page updates, to seek out updates by their friends - they'll do it if it really matters to them, and they'll massively neglect the users that don't matter to them. This is also where Facebook's finances implode; most FB employees are self-interested in that outcome not happening. The central issue is: the core mission of Facebook (today) is a fraud. Everyone should not be connected. Everyone does not want to be connected to everyone else. It is not a great ideal to pursue connect-everyone, it's fundamentally anti-human. It will not make the world a better place. That ideology needs to be challenged, and it rests at the center of Facebook. Facebook has built itself to agitate for attention. They designed the feed/wall to prompt artificially high levels of engagement. Give that control back to the user in spades. People will adjust their systems, they do know what's best for them when it comes to this matter (and a lot more so than a politician thousands of miles away that has never met this person, or Facebook corporate). Society sculpting by some ruling authority, some group that happens to be dominant at a given time, is a truly horrific approach. It will accelerate the splintering into tribes, and accelerate oppression by the government.

bostonsre 5y ago

Yes, democratic governments have many drawbacks around regulation but aren't they the least bad choice we have in a situation like facebook? There is no governance beyond zuckerberg currently and he has proven that he is aligned with zuckerberg and not society. Continuing with the status quo and doing nothing does not seem like a good idea to me.

disgruntledphd2 5y ago
I mean, he's been pretty open about his goals and moral code for a while now. The entire company was built on the assumption that being connected to as many people as possible is net good. You can probably argue that he's wrong on this, but it's hard to say that he just cares about himself.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  I doubt it, but I guess its possible that is his only true north. If it is, he is going about it in a Machiavellian or Caesar like manner where he does not care about the impact he has while attaining those goals. But I also think it's possible that his actions are those of someone who is power hungry and does not care about what happens in his wake.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    > If it is, he is going about it in a Machiavellian or Caesar like manner The dude is a classics nerd, and supposedly a bunch of the original FB mottos were in Latin (Fortune Favours the Bold, at least). That isn't surprising to me, at least.

adventured 5y ago

There is an excellent, obvious solution. And it's the one Facebook refuses to consider because it's a large negative economically. Give users a lot more control. Over their feeds. Over what they receive or not. How they receive it. Alternatively, abolish the feeds entirely. Make people seek out updates by other users manually. It's time consuming, it drastically slows down the reaction-agitation cycle. People then focus on consuming only what's most important to them to a far greater degree, as their time is limited. Facebook moved away from that early approach by intention to spur time-on-platform, consumption, engagement. In the offline space you have a small number of actual friends, a small number of people you can actually keep up with, because of time constraints. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. It keeps people focused on what's most important to them. Facebook seeks to generate the opposite outcome, they want max engagement and consumption, so now you've got two thousand fake friends, and two hundred more relevant people within those two thousand fake friends that you receive updates from on a daily or weekly basis. That's insane. There's no other good way to put, it's insanity. It's bullshit. It's fake, it's inhuman. That mass consumption of content, that the feed/wall was built to accomplish, how much of it matters to the end user? I think the answer is very little. Put it back into the user's hands to seek out profile page updates, to seek out updates by their friends - they'll do it if it really matters to them, and they'll massively neglect the users that don't matter to them. This is also where Facebook's finances implode; most FB employees are self-interested in that outcome not happening. The central issue is: the core mission of Facebook (today) is a fraud. Everyone should not be connected. Everyone does not want to be connected to everyone else. It is not a great ideal to pursue connect-everyone, it's fundamentally anti-human. It will not make the world a better place. That ideology needs to be challenged, and it rests at the center of Facebook. Facebook has built itself to agitate for attention. They designed the feed/wall to prompt artificially high levels of engagement. Give that control back to the user in spades. People will adjust their systems, they do know what's best for them when it comes to this matter (and a lot more so than a politician thousands of miles away that has never met this person, or Facebook corporate). Society sculpting by some ruling authority, some group that happens to be dominant at a given time, is a truly horrific approach. It will accelerate the splintering into tribes, and accelerate oppression by the government.