4 ms·

I both agree and disagree. Your proposed solution is a good one (for other reasons too) but regulatory consequences can be effective if those consequences are s

I both agree and disagree. Your proposed solution is a good one (for other reasons too) but regulatory consequences can be effective if those consequences are serious enough and are actually being enforced. After the first couple 100k$ fines per banned user I will bet you good money nobody will ever be banned.

mojzu 4y ago
It does heavily depend on what form those regulations take though, I think there are valid reasons to ban users from a platform or prevent them from using it in particular ways (either for safety reasons or making the platform a more pleasant experience for everyone else). I can easily imagine some governments would co-opt this kind of regulation to benefit themselves or punish people and companies who aren't sufficiently supportive Personally I think the mandated interoperability/public API is a better solution, in the best case it could lead to some actual competition and if that didn't happen atleast people who chose to leave Meta/FB would have options for maintaining the social connections
- throwaway2037 4y ago
  I like these two posts -- yours and the one above. It makes me think: If gov't is going to add regulation for social media accounts (something that I support), should it be a requirement to identify yourself to the social media network owner? My point: Some kind of national ID tied to your name, but kept private, so the company can absolutely say if you do or do not own the account. I know, I know, there are all kinds of holes. However, consider the alternative: What if it was not required (real ID for your social media accounts)? How could these companies reliably tie the account back to a real person making a claim? Require 2FA via YubiKey? I have learned from HN that a mobile phone + SMS just isn't secure enough in many jurisdictions. It is too easy to use social engineering to takeover a mobile phone. Edit: I have mentioned before in previous comments (not this post): After Dodd-Frank regulations in the US, global investment banks really changed their behavior when fines became massive. So massive, it was seriously altering quarterly revenues and hurting stock prices. I favour the same type of regulation for social media network companies. It is the only way to make them listen to the law.
  - MiddleEndian 4y ago
    Yeah personally I'd rather stick to letting the companies ban who they want and letting me do what I want. If there's any ID related law, I'd rather they be FORBIDDEN from collecting IDs.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    You really want social media to have the same type of access to your personal information that banks have? A know your customer type of regulation? It amazes me that on one hand, every law related to technology that the government passes in the US, HN is almost universally opposed to. But they trust the same lawmakers “this time to get it right”.
    - throwaway2037 4y ago
      You wrote: <<You really want social media to have the same type of access to your personal information that banks have? A know your customer type of regulation?>> Would you support if the data leak fines were similar? I would. To be clear, I am talking about global investment bank-style "know your customer" (KYC). If retail/commercial banks leak customer PI, the fines are _immense_ in 2022. Most of them now have enormous security teams, or they pay AWS/Azure/G to do they same via consulting / cloud fees.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        My financial information is much more important to me than social media. And they don’t pay cloud providers to ensure security. AWS [1] for instance always stresses the “Shared Responsibility Model”. AWS is responsible for security “of the cloud” the customer is responsible for security “in the cloud”. https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-model/ https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-mode... There is no way in the world that any cloud provider would ever take responsible for customer workloads. If you make your S3 buckets world readable - which is really easy to do. That’s on you. [1] I work in consulting at AWS, all opinions are my own.
        4y ago

mojzu 4y ago

It does heavily depend on what form those regulations take though, I think there are valid reasons to ban users from a platform or prevent them from using it in particular ways (either for safety reasons or making the platform a more pleasant experience for everyone else). I can easily imagine some governments would co-opt this kind of regulation to benefit themselves or punish people and companies who aren't sufficiently supportive Personally I think the mandated interoperability/public API is a better solution, in the best case it could lead to some actual competition and if that didn't happen atleast people who chose to leave Meta/FB would have options for maintaining the social connections

throwaway2037 4y ago
I like these two posts -- yours and the one above. It makes me think: If gov't is going to add regulation for social media accounts (something that I support), should it be a requirement to identify yourself to the social media network owner? My point: Some kind of national ID tied to your name, but kept private, so the company can absolutely say if you do or do not own the account. I know, I know, there are all kinds of holes. However, consider the alternative: What if it was not required (real ID for your social media accounts)? How could these companies reliably tie the account back to a real person making a claim? Require 2FA via YubiKey? I have learned from HN that a mobile phone + SMS just isn't secure enough in many jurisdictions. It is too easy to use social engineering to takeover a mobile phone. Edit: I have mentioned before in previous comments (not this post): After Dodd-Frank regulations in the US, global investment banks really changed their behavior when fines became massive. So massive, it was seriously altering quarterly revenues and hurting stock prices. I favour the same type of regulation for social media network companies. It is the only way to make them listen to the law.
- MiddleEndian 4y ago
  Yeah personally I'd rather stick to letting the companies ban who they want and letting me do what I want. If there's any ID related law, I'd rather they be FORBIDDEN from collecting IDs.
- scarface74 4y ago
  You really want social media to have the same type of access to your personal information that banks have? A know your customer type of regulation? It amazes me that on one hand, every law related to technology that the government passes in the US, HN is almost universally opposed to. But they trust the same lawmakers “this time to get it right”.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    You wrote: <<You really want social media to have the same type of access to your personal information that banks have? A know your customer type of regulation?>> Would you support if the data leak fines were similar? I would. To be clear, I am talking about global investment bank-style "know your customer" (KYC). If retail/commercial banks leak customer PI, the fines are _immense_ in 2022. Most of them now have enormous security teams, or they pay AWS/Azure/G to do they same via consulting / cloud fees.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      My financial information is much more important to me than social media. And they don’t pay cloud providers to ensure security. AWS [1] for instance always stresses the “Shared Responsibility Model”. AWS is responsible for security “of the cloud” the customer is responsible for security “in the cloud”. https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-model/ https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/shared-responsibility-mode... There is no way in the world that any cloud provider would ever take responsible for customer workloads. If you make your S3 buckets world readable - which is really easy to do. That’s on you. [1] I work in consulting at AWS, all opinions are my own.
      - 4y ago