> Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable.
OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated.
> What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal.
Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it.
Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people.
> Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
> Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online?
I don't agree that banning social networks would be productive or even possible, but this argument doesn't make sense. People had social lives before social networking. People had friends online before social networking. Social networking is not required for these things.
I don’t think you have to shut down Facebook. Just shut down targeted advertising, algorithmic filtering of content, and a lot of their surveillance practices (e.g. shadow profiles).
Should Google's targeted advertising also be prohibited?
Should Google's algorithmic filtering of content also be prohibited?
Should Doubleclick/Google's surveillance practices (which almost certainly include some kind of "shadow" profile) be prohibited?
Also, people have been talking about shadow profiles for at least a decade now, and yet no disgruntled FB employee has revealed all. Why do you think that is?
Yes, Google's similar practices should also be prohibited. You ask as if it's obvious that someone would say no and show themselves to be a hypocrite, which is weird.
OK cool, I was interested in whether or not you were being consistent.
I don't find it weird at all, I've noticed that often people get really upset about FB or GOOG doing something, while ignoring the other, so hence my questions.
Yes of course? Because Facebook employees are highly paid, I imagine. The reason why that whistleblower got so much coverage is that usually all it takes to keep some quiet is to pay them off.
Like, there have been soooo many FB whistleblowers/leakers in the past four years, and yet shadow profiles (which would seem to be important to leak) have never had any backup here.
I don't think that this is a coincidence, and I 100% disagree with the notion that this is because FB employees are well paid.
I honestly think that it's because shadow profiles essentially don't exist in any meaningful form (there's probably some logs for non-FB users, but I don't think that they are aggregatable to a specific individual without an account, mostly because that would be super low value and really hard).
I am not concerned about hurting the poor corporation. What I am concerned about is having actual laws in place, not enforcement based on outrage. If Facebook is doing thing X, we decide we shouldn't allow thing X, we make thing X illegal. If FB continues to do thing X, we apply the law to them. We don't just dish out punishments for vague "You're hurting America" crimes. You need to define the thing you want banned, and it can't be "Facebook."
OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated.
> What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.