4 ms·

Maybe we need a moral panic about Facebook

19 points by edavis 5y ago

_3u10 5y ago
I have a feeling their mod team bans more people than left because of the news. Even in hockey trash talk groups everyone is getting 30 day bans within a week or two of their last ban. Not sure what the moral panic is all about, no one really cares what FB does with our posts it’s more about people calling your work because you trashed their team. Mostly everyone is looking for another platform where we can post memes without getting banned.
HenryKissinger 5y ago
Even though the corporate conduct of Facebook has been abhorrent, the company is not guilty of a crime that's on the books. I wonder if the Constitution could be amended to grant the US Congress the power to "impeach" and indict any US citizen or legal entity for any reason whatsoever. Congress already has the power to prosecute the President and remove him, but this power doesn't extend beyond the Oval Office. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the idea that Congress should be able to prosecute and punish US citizens, by way of fine, prison time, or another punishment, for actions that do not technically breach an existing law but which nonetheless run afoul of morals, ethics, or common decency, is worth pondering. I won't hide that I desperately want to see Mark Zuckerberg serve hard prison time for everything he's done.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  That’s a “bill of attainder” and explicitly unconstitutional. Obviously, the constitution could be amended to grant Congress the power to issue bills of attainder, rather than forbidden from doing so. I’d argue very very strongly against doing so.
- 0x0 5y ago
  So you want to just throw out the whole separation of powers concept?
  - HenryKissinger 5y ago
    Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. I think some exceptional situations should warrant a similar treatment.
    - 0x0 5y ago
      Scary choice of freedoms and liberties for citizens you are willing to give up there.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      > Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. This seems badly mistaken to me on two counts: - Congress doesn't appropriate itself the powers. The Constitution assigns those powers to Congress. - The powers and privileges of Congress, in the case of Presidential Impeachment aren't so much "judge, jury, and executioner" as much as they are "HR representative making a firing decision". Presidential Impeachment removes the President from Office, but it does not "execute" them, "put them in jail", or even attach any civil or criminal penalties to them. Less "executioner" and more "firing manager".
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  for actions that do not technically breach an existing law Consider the implications of what you've said here. Punishment outside of law breaks all kinds of long-developed social and democratic safeguards. It's one of those "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"[0] type situations. [0]: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government
gorwell 5y ago
For the millionth time, the media is fabricating a moral panic around their belated discovery that Facebook does what they do, but better, more scalably, and more profitably. This is the 2016 Facebook panic all over again, but with fewer Russians. You’d think the storyline would get old, but no… There's almost nothing novel in the leaked Facebook docs, other than confirmation of Facebook's slowing growth and aging userbase. Everything being discussed now was being discussed years ago. There were whole chapters in Chaos Monkeys about it. Big whoop. As for why this is getting nonstop coverage: Aside from mere anti-FB animus, the aesthetics of all this--a compelling whistleblower, leaked docs, internal discussions of (known) tradeoffs--plays precisely into the necessary Aaron Sorkin drama and regnant journalist epistemology. https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1453032152178651136 https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1453032152178651136
- magicink81 5y ago
  Speculation: She's a spook (or working with spooks), and this is a public part of a negotiation taking place between FB and "the establishment" aka deep state Feds who want greater access to FB data, and greater influence and control over its policies. Ultimately these negotiations will result in some new legislation and regulatory systems put in place which put more power in the hands of government officials.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  So, essentially the Rupert Murdochs are reacting fairly predictably to the realization that they've already been replaced by Mark Zuckerbergs. The Rupert Murdochs still have some of their (paid) sympathizers in government, which is the only reason the Rupert Murdochs have any appearance of potential future viability. I, probably like most HNers, like neither the Rupert Murdochs nor the Mark Zuckerbergs, but I don't know what to do in opposition to them, other than avoid their services - which I already do. Lobby government for greater personal privacy protections? Hahahahaha, ALL Western Governments are going in the opposite direction because Facebook opened that door to show the world that 'the people' don't care about privacy. The Rupert Murdochs are also coming (a decade late) to the private data party, and Governments already have cozy relationships with them, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to put up any resistance to "gathering all the datas", making any opposition to Facebook's internal decisions laughably hypocritical - but only to those who already know or care (a vast VAST minority).

19 points by edavis 5y ago

I have a feeling their mod team bans more people than left because of the news. Even in hockey trash talk groups everyone is getting 30 day bans within a week or two of their last ban. Not sure what the moral panic is all about, no one really cares what FB does with our posts it’s more about people calling your work because you trashed their team. Mostly everyone is looking for another platform where we can post memes without getting banned.

HenryKissinger 5y ago

Even though the corporate conduct of Facebook has been abhorrent, the company is not guilty of a crime that's on the books. I wonder if the Constitution could be amended to grant the US Congress the power to "impeach" and indict any US citizen or legal entity for any reason whatsoever. Congress already has the power to prosecute the President and remove him, but this power doesn't extend beyond the Oval Office. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the idea that Congress should be able to prosecute and punish US citizens, by way of fine, prison time, or another punishment, for actions that do not technically breach an existing law but which nonetheless run afoul of morals, ethics, or common decency, is worth pondering. I won't hide that I desperately want to see Mark Zuckerberg serve hard prison time for everything he's done.

ncallaway 5y ago
That’s a “bill of attainder” and explicitly unconstitutional. Obviously, the constitution could be amended to grant Congress the power to issue bills of attainder, rather than forbidden from doing so. I’d argue very very strongly against doing so.
0x0 5y ago
So you want to just throw out the whole separation of powers concept?
- HenryKissinger 5y ago
  Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. I think some exceptional situations should warrant a similar treatment.
  - 0x0 5y ago
    Scary choice of freedoms and liberties for citizens you are willing to give up there.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. This seems badly mistaken to me on two counts: - Congress doesn't appropriate itself the powers. The Constitution assigns those powers to Congress. - The powers and privileges of Congress, in the case of Presidential Impeachment aren't so much "judge, jury, and executioner" as much as they are "HR representative making a firing decision". Presidential Impeachment removes the President from Office, but it does not "execute" them, "put them in jail", or even attach any civil or criminal penalties to them. Less "executioner" and more "firing manager".
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
for actions that do not technically breach an existing law Consider the implications of what you've said here. Punishment outside of law breaks all kinds of long-developed social and democratic safeguards. It's one of those "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"[0] type situations. [0]: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

gorwell 5y ago

For the millionth time, the media is fabricating a moral panic around their belated discovery that Facebook does what they do, but better, more scalably, and more profitably. This is the 2016 Facebook panic all over again, but with fewer Russians. You’d think the storyline would get old, but no… There's almost nothing novel in the leaked Facebook docs, other than confirmation of Facebook's slowing growth and aging userbase. Everything being discussed now was being discussed years ago. There were whole chapters in Chaos Monkeys about it. Big whoop. As for why this is getting nonstop coverage: Aside from mere anti-FB animus, the aesthetics of all this--a compelling whistleblower, leaked docs, internal discussions of (known) tradeoffs--plays precisely into the necessary Aaron Sorkin drama and regnant journalist epistemology. https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1453032152178651136 https://twitter.com/antoniogm/status/1453032152178651136

magicink81 5y ago
Speculation: She's a spook (or working with spooks), and this is a public part of a negotiation taking place between FB and "the establishment" aka deep state Feds who want greater access to FB data, and greater influence and control over its policies. Ultimately these negotiations will result in some new legislation and regulatory systems put in place which put more power in the hands of government officials.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
So, essentially the Rupert Murdochs are reacting fairly predictably to the realization that they've already been replaced by Mark Zuckerbergs. The Rupert Murdochs still have some of their (paid) sympathizers in government, which is the only reason the Rupert Murdochs have any appearance of potential future viability. I, probably like most HNers, like neither the Rupert Murdochs nor the Mark Zuckerbergs, but I don't know what to do in opposition to them, other than avoid their services - which I already do. Lobby government for greater personal privacy protections? Hahahahaha, ALL Western Governments are going in the opposite direction because Facebook opened that door to show the world that 'the people' don't care about privacy. The Rupert Murdochs are also coming (a decade late) to the private data party, and Governments already have cozy relationships with them, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to put up any resistance to "gathering all the datas", making any opposition to Facebook's internal decisions laughably hypocritical - but only to those who already know or care (a vast VAST minority).