The US government shouldn't be negotiating with Facebook as if it were another nation armed with nuclear weapons. It should dissolve Facebook for gross malfeasance, expropriate its assets, and...
The US government shouldn't be negotiating with Facebook as if it were another nation armed with nuclear weapons. It should dissolve Facebook for gross malfeasance, expropriate its assets, and dump all of its intellectual property into the public domain.
Seconded. The amount of crap that Facebook has been able to get away with is just insane, and the "congressional investigation" was just a show for the masses.
Seconded. The amount of crap that Facebook has been able to get away with is just insane, and the "congressional investigation" was just a show for the masses.
The problem with Congress is that most of them can't tell a compiler from a Cuisinart. We saw that when they had Zuckerberg sitting right in front of them. That son of a bitch didn't even have to...
The problem with Congress is that most of them can't tell a compiler from a Cuisinart. We saw that when they had Zuckerberg sitting right in front of them. That son of a bitch didn't even have to lie. He was able to bullshit them with impunity because none of them had the background to call him on it.
Pretty much. On one hand, they could have brought in other tech experts to testify; but the issue with that is how they select those experts. Congress has a track record of calling in experts form...
Pretty much. On one hand, they could have brought in other tech experts to testify; but the issue with that is how they select those experts. Congress has a track record of calling in experts form only one side of an issue, and it just so happens to be the side that Congress is pushing for.
I would really like to see more scientists, doctors, and engineers run for public office; at least then we have a good chance of someone on the committee knowing what they are talking about.
I honestly think that this won't happen until we replace elections with sortition. The skills required of scientists, physicians, and engineers are not necessarily the skills best suited to...
I would really like to see more scientists, doctors, and engineers run for public office; at least then we have a good chance of someone on the committee knowing what they are talking about.
I honestly think that this won't happen until we replace elections with sortition. The skills required of scientists, physicians, and engineers are not necessarily the skills best suited to winning elections.
yeah, but that cannot happen unless we change the Constitution, which would require a majority of the states to request a Constitutional Convention and having all of them agree to a new amendment....
yeah, but that cannot happen unless we change the Constitution, which would require a majority of the states to request a Constitutional Convention and having all of them agree to a new amendment. But that is an interesting system though, I will give you that.
Pretty extreme thought, but something I've been pondering lately: The founders of the colonies could leave Britain and come to the new world because there was "unsettled" land. One of the cliche...
Pretty extreme thought, but something I've been pondering lately:
The founders of the colonies could leave Britain and come to the new world because there was "unsettled" land. One of the cliche issues was taxation without representation. Once the government can't represent our desires such as in this case, is that not the same?
Now, we don't have any more land to move to, but the digital world and it's new possibilities of governance are the new frontier.
If we can generate new money and forms of decentralized governance, then doesn't that imply that THAT is where the new forms of governance can emerge?
short answer: Yes. Slightly longer answer: We already have the capability to form a new government if we feel the current one is beyond salvaging (I currently believe that this is not the case)....
short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: We already have the capability to form a new government if we feel the current one is beyond salvaging (I currently believe that this is not the case). The problem is that you have to have a group of people willing to work together towards a common goal. Now those people may not agree on every topic (and they probably will not), but if they are willing to unite; then those are the people that get stuff done.
I watched a decent chunk of the hearing, and it was pretty obvious that (at least for a lot of them) their questions had been prepared by aides that had a reasonable grasp of the issues, but then...
I watched a decent chunk of the hearing, and it was pretty obvious that (at least for a lot of them) their questions had been prepared by aides that had a reasonable grasp of the issues, but then they had absolutely zero ability to follow up on them because they didn't actually understand what they were asking. Zuckerberg would answer in a way that they could have easily pushed him on, but they didn't know how and would usually just acknowledge his answer and move on to another prepared question without getting the information they should have been able to.
IMO that goes much too far. Better privacy protections, more protections from foreign countries meddling in elections, and mandatory reporting of data breaches would satisfy me.
IMO that goes much too far. Better privacy protections, more protections from foreign countries meddling in elections, and mandatory reporting of data breaches would satisfy me.
The problem with doing things your way is that unless fines for flouting laws and regulations amount to a large double-digit percentage of a corporation's annual revenue, that corporation can...
The problem with doing things your way is that unless fines for flouting laws and regulations amount to a large double-digit percentage of a corporation's annual revenue, that corporation can pretty much do whatever it likes and write off the fines as just another business expense. We need a way to force corporations to obey the law and adhere to regulations, and the only thing that seems to have a chance in hell of working is the corporate equivalent of the death penalty.
So why execute FB and not Equifax? Or why not Google? Maybe before we destroy thousands and jobs and a beloved platform for millions we consider the hefty fine approach first...
So why execute FB and not Equifax? Or why not Google?
Maybe before we destroy thousands and jobs and a beloved platform for millions we consider the hefty fine approach first...
This thread is about Facebook. I'm all for taking a nice big antitrust hammer to Equifax, Google, Amazon, Comcast, ConAgra, Disney, Verizon, AT&T, etc. and destroying them as well. I don't care...
So why execute FB and not Equifax? Or why not Google?
This thread is about Facebook. I'm all for taking a nice big antitrust hammer to Equifax, Google, Amazon, Comcast, ConAgra, Disney, Verizon, AT&T, etc. and destroying them as well.
Maybe before we destroy thousands of jobs
I don't care about destroying jobs. Actually, I do, but this thread isn't about antiwork, bullshit jobs, or guaranteed minimum incomes.
a beloved platform for millions
You're kidding, right? People might think they need Facebook, but I don't believe they love it.
we consider the hefty fine approach first...
Facebook has been fined before, and the abuses keep happening. The FTC already has the authority. They just need to grow some spines (and maybe some testicles) and use it.
I fall into this category. I use it to occasionally keep tabs on friends and acquaintances I know or used to know, communicate with people I have no other means of communicating with, and post...
You're kidding, right? People might think they need Facebook, but I don't believe they love it.
I fall into this category. I use it to occasionally keep tabs on friends and acquaintances I know or used to know, communicate with people I have no other means of communicating with, and post minor updates about my life maybe once ever year or so. The network effect keeps me from deleting my account fully.
Apart from that, I don't love it, and I certainly don't have it installed on my phone.
I'd have to ask you the same question. You're under the impression none of FB's 2.3 BILLION users actually like the site? Yes, I agree. The fines should hurt. A lot.
You're kidding, right? People might think they need Facebook, but I don't believe they love it.
I'd have to ask you the same question. You're under the impression none of FB's 2.3 BILLION users actually like the site?
Facebook has been fined before, and the abuses keep happening. The FTC already has the authority. They just need to grow some spines (and maybe some testicles) and use it.
USA is a democracy. There is a legal process to break up a monopoly. It requires a time consuming and expensive court case. This negotiated settlement is similar to a plea bargain. The problem was...
USA is a democracy. There is a legal process to break up a monopoly. It requires a time consuming and expensive court case. This negotiated settlement is similar to a plea bargain.
The problem was with the FTC approval of Facebook buying Instagram & Whatsapp in the first place. Facebook agreed to keep Whatsapp data private, but apparently there were absolutely no legal consequences to facebook simply changing their mind and mining all that juicy data for their own benefit.
I'm sure it's made law enforcement's job easier in a great many cases. Why coerce a confession out of a suspect when they most likely incriminated themselves in a Facebook post?
I'm sure it's made law enforcement's job easier in a great many cases. Why coerce a confession out of a suspect when they most likely incriminated themselves in a Facebook post?
The US government shouldn't be negotiating with Facebook as if it were another nation armed with nuclear weapons. It should dissolve Facebook for gross malfeasance, expropriate its assets, and dump all of its intellectual property into the public domain.
Seconded. The amount of crap that Facebook has been able to get away with is just insane, and the "congressional investigation" was just a show for the masses.
The problem with Congress is that most of them can't tell a compiler from a Cuisinart. We saw that when they had Zuckerberg sitting right in front of them. That son of a bitch didn't even have to lie. He was able to bullshit them with impunity because none of them had the background to call him on it.
Pretty much. On one hand, they could have brought in other tech experts to testify; but the issue with that is how they select those experts. Congress has a track record of calling in experts form only one side of an issue, and it just so happens to be the side that Congress is pushing for.
I would really like to see more scientists, doctors, and engineers run for public office; at least then we have a good chance of someone on the committee knowing what they are talking about.
I honestly think that this won't happen until we replace elections with sortition. The skills required of scientists, physicians, and engineers are not necessarily the skills best suited to winning elections.
yeah, but that cannot happen unless we change the Constitution, which would require a majority of the states to request a Constitutional Convention and having all of them agree to a new amendment. But that is an interesting system though, I will give you that.
You're right, but individual states can replace elections with sortition before we worry about fixing the national government.
That would be a good first step.
Pretty extreme thought, but something I've been pondering lately:
The founders of the colonies could leave Britain and come to the new world because there was "unsettled" land. One of the cliche issues was taxation without representation. Once the government can't represent our desires such as in this case, is that not the same?
Now, we don't have any more land to move to, but the digital world and it's new possibilities of governance are the new frontier.
If we can generate new money and forms of decentralized governance, then doesn't that imply that THAT is where the new forms of governance can emerge?
short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: We already have the capability to form a new government if we feel the current one is beyond salvaging (I currently believe that this is not the case). The problem is that you have to have a group of people willing to work together towards a common goal. Now those people may not agree on every topic (and they probably will not), but if they are willing to unite; then those are the people that get stuff done.
I watched a decent chunk of the hearing, and it was pretty obvious that (at least for a lot of them) their questions had been prepared by aides that had a reasonable grasp of the issues, but then they had absolutely zero ability to follow up on them because they didn't actually understand what they were asking. Zuckerberg would answer in a way that they could have easily pushed him on, but they didn't know how and would usually just acknowledge his answer and move on to another prepared question without getting the information they should have been able to.
IMO that goes much too far. Better privacy protections, more protections from foreign countries meddling in elections, and mandatory reporting of data breaches would satisfy me.
The problem with doing things your way is that unless fines for flouting laws and regulations amount to a large double-digit percentage of a corporation's annual revenue, that corporation can pretty much do whatever it likes and write off the fines as just another business expense. We need a way to force corporations to obey the law and adhere to regulations, and the only thing that seems to have a chance in hell of working is the corporate equivalent of the death penalty.
So why execute FB and not Equifax? Or why not Google?
Maybe before we destroy thousands and jobs and a beloved platform for millions we consider the hefty fine approach first...
Yeah, I agree that the idea of negotiating with a company is absurd, but there's a long way from "token fine" to "total destruction".
This thread is about Facebook. I'm all for taking a nice big antitrust hammer to Equifax, Google, Amazon, Comcast, ConAgra, Disney, Verizon, AT&T, etc. and destroying them as well.
I don't care about destroying jobs. Actually, I do, but this thread isn't about antiwork, bullshit jobs, or guaranteed minimum incomes.
You're kidding, right? People might think they need Facebook, but I don't believe they love it.
Facebook has been fined before, and the abuses keep happening. The FTC already has the authority. They just need to grow some spines (and maybe some testicles) and use it.
I fall into this category. I use it to occasionally keep tabs on friends and acquaintances I know or used to know, communicate with people I have no other means of communicating with, and post minor updates about my life maybe once ever year or so. The network effect keeps me from deleting my account fully.
Apart from that, I don't love it, and I certainly don't have it installed on my phone.
I'd have to ask you the same question. You're under the impression none of FB's 2.3 BILLION users actually like the site?
Yes, I agree. The fines should hurt. A lot.
USA is a democracy. There is a legal process to break up a monopoly. It requires a time consuming and expensive court case. This negotiated settlement is similar to a plea bargain.
The problem was with the FTC approval of Facebook buying Instagram & Whatsapp in the first place. Facebook agreed to keep Whatsapp data private, but apparently there were absolutely no legal consequences to facebook simply changing their mind and mining all that juicy data for their own benefit.
The cynic in me wonders just how much the government benefits from Facebook.
I'm sure it's made law enforcement's job easier in a great many cases. Why coerce a confession out of a suspect when they most likely incriminated themselves in a Facebook post?
Seeing a dude drop his money and run out the back door on Facebook Live as the police raided his place was a watershed moment for me.