5 ms·

I would caution against believing “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when that would make the government your friend. Yes, Facebook has been awful and done gr

by fwlr 3y ago

I would caution against believing “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when that would make the government your friend. Yes, Facebook has been awful and done great harm in some ways, but crucially it is not the case that Facebook was only able to do such harm because the FTC lacked the ability to unilaterally and without oversight deploy extreme powers like “you may not monetize this data” or “you may not release features or products without our permission”. The FTC has some insane thumbscrews now, and though it may be satisfying to see them use their thumbscrews to make Facebook squeal, you still shouldn’t be happy that the FTC has thumbscrews.

jrochkind1 3y ago
In what ways are you worried about the FTC using it's powers for things you thinks are harmful? What things specifically?
- jonhohle 3y ago
  The FTC has no power to create law, just interpret existing laws. Any “bans” would already need to be illegal based on current law enacted by congress. In the past Chevron Deference used to assume executive agencies had broad authority on law interpretation, but that seems to be a crumbling precedent. If there are already existing laws that cover this, the FTC is just doing their enforcement job.
ethbr0 3y ago
If the criteria for FTC thumbscrews is "Become a 2023.USD$630 B market cap company" then I'm comfortable with that. Fuck combinations (to use the original 1900s phrasing); restore competition.
- fwlr 3y ago
  If that was the criteria I would also be comfortable! However, it is not; the FTC has taken action* against many entities smaller than Facebook, and in point of fact Facebook might actually be one of the biggest entities the FTC has taken action against (I don’t think this puts an upper bound on the size of entity the FTC will take on, my point is that it certainly doesn’t put a lower bound on it). * Not necessarily actions I would call “thumbscrews” like their current proposed penalties for Facebook, and mostly actions I think are appropriate, but it is still an indicator of who they’re willing to take action against.
jnovek 3y ago
If it's not the government's job to ensure privacy protection, whose is it? I'm also cautious about ham-fisted internet regulation, but privacy doesn't give any of the entrenched social media players an advantage and I can't imagine the market correcting this problem.
burkaman 3y ago
> without oversight Can you explain this? What about courts, and the President, and Congress?
javajosh 3y ago
Not a good framing. The government is not static to be loved or hated. It is rather like a cyborg who has behavior modifications and parts added and removed over time. It's a mess and a kludge and it does things we don't like, does contradictory things, because of how we change it to suit ourselves. When the cyborg does something I like, I am happy and say "good cyborg, nice cyborg". I do not call the cyborg a friend, but rather I approve its current behavior. That is what democracy is: it's living with a cyborg that you don't fully control. It's not a friend, its not an enemy, its vast complex slow machine that is a thing we put up with because it's better than nothing. The primary alternative is a coherent cyborg fully owned and operated by one person. Humans are always tempted by this vision of a government that is finally all good, all friend. Yet we have learned time and again that this almost always is even greater misery. (The exception is when the scale is smaller and the autocrat is capable and the need is immediate and finite. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew comes to mind. Startup leaders can also fall in this category.)
- fwlr 3y ago
  I mean, I endorse your framing and don’t think it disagrees with my framing. I thought my comment contained a lot of “good cyborg, nice cyborg” for punishing a known bad actor while also cautioning against thinking government is “all friend” now that they have punished Facebook. Perhaps it comes off like I think government is all enemy? I’m not sure.
xbar 3y ago
I am very, very happy the FTC has tools to ensure fair business competition and the protection of US consumers. It has been woefully absent from regulating data monetization for three decades to the point that any regulation seems like deploying extreme powers to the data-addicted.

by fwlr 3y ago

jrochkind1 3y ago

In what ways are you worried about the FTC using it's powers for things you thinks are harmful? What things specifically?

jonhohle 3y ago
The FTC has no power to create law, just interpret existing laws. Any “bans” would already need to be illegal based on current law enacted by congress. In the past Chevron Deference used to assume executive agencies had broad authority on law interpretation, but that seems to be a crumbling precedent. If there are already existing laws that cover this, the FTC is just doing their enforcement job.

ethbr0 3y ago

If the criteria for FTC thumbscrews is "Become a 2023.USD$630 B market cap company" then I'm comfortable with that. Fuck combinations (to use the original 1900s phrasing); restore competition.

fwlr 3y ago
If that was the criteria I would also be comfortable! However, it is not; the FTC has taken action* against many entities smaller than Facebook, and in point of fact Facebook might actually be one of the biggest entities the FTC has taken action against (I don’t think this puts an upper bound on the size of entity the FTC will take on, my point is that it certainly doesn’t put a lower bound on it). * Not necessarily actions I would call “thumbscrews” like their current proposed penalties for Facebook, and mostly actions I think are appropriate, but it is still an indicator of who they’re willing to take action against.

jnovek 3y ago

If it's not the government's job to ensure privacy protection, whose is it? I'm also cautious about ham-fisted internet regulation, but privacy doesn't give any of the entrenched social media players an advantage and I can't imagine the market correcting this problem.

burkaman 3y ago

> without oversight Can you explain this? What about courts, and the President, and Congress?

javajosh 3y ago

Not a good framing. The government is not static to be loved or hated. It is rather like a cyborg who has behavior modifications and parts added and removed over time. It's a mess and a kludge and it does things we don't like, does contradictory things, because of how we change it to suit ourselves. When the cyborg does something I like, I am happy and say "good cyborg, nice cyborg". I do not call the cyborg a friend, but rather I approve its current behavior. That is what democracy is: it's living with a cyborg that you don't fully control. It's not a friend, its not an enemy, its vast complex slow machine that is a thing we put up with because it's better than nothing. The primary alternative is a coherent cyborg fully owned and operated by one person. Humans are always tempted by this vision of a government that is finally all good, all friend. Yet we have learned time and again that this almost always is even greater misery. (The exception is when the scale is smaller and the autocrat is capable and the need is immediate and finite. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew comes to mind. Startup leaders can also fall in this category.)

fwlr 3y ago
I mean, I endorse your framing and don’t think it disagrees with my framing. I thought my comment contained a lot of “good cyborg, nice cyborg” for punishing a known bad actor while also cautioning against thinking government is “all friend” now that they have punished Facebook. Perhaps it comes off like I think government is all enemy? I’m not sure.

xbar 3y ago

I am very, very happy the FTC has tools to ensure fair business competition and the protection of US consumers. It has been woefully absent from regulating data monetization for three decades to the point that any regulation seems like deploying extreme powers to the data-addicted.