13 votes

Mark Zuckerberg: The internet needs new rules. Let’s start in these four areas

23 comments

  1. [2]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. Amarok
      Link Parent
      Thank you. The change we are looking for runs contrary to the business model these companies depend upon. If your goal is to get people to give you their data so that you can sell it, you just...

      Thank you.

      The change we are looking for runs contrary to the business model these companies depend upon. If your goal is to get people to give you their data so that you can sell it, you just lost the privacy argument right there, the rest is just a distraction.

      4 votes
  2. [7]
    annadane
    Link
    Cue a quadrillion negative comments and "Fuck Zuckerberg" on every site that isn't Tildes (only because it tries to foster productive discussion). It's good he wants to work on it. He does have to...
    • Exemplary

    Cue a quadrillion negative comments and "Fuck Zuckerberg" on every site that isn't Tildes (only because it tries to foster productive discussion). It's good he wants to work on it. He does have to earn that trust, though, due to everything else that's happened and the grow-at-any-cost model.

    28 votes
    1. [6]
      rkcr
      Link Parent
      I keep thinking back to what Anand Giridharadas has been speaking about recently, which is that those in power are happy to try to affect positive change on society... as long as it does not...

      I keep thinking back to what Anand Giridharadas has been speaking about recently, which is that those in power are happy to try to affect positive change on society... as long as it does not lessen their power in any way. I definitely feel like Zuckberberg is in that position - I think he actually wants to be a positive force, but would he be willing to go so far as to lessen Facebook to benefit society as a whole?

      26 votes
      1. [5]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [4]
          unknown user
          Link Parent
          I was one of the (now two) exemplary labellers. I labelled the comment as such not because I like Zuckerberg, or Facebook (in fact, I wouldn't let Facebook's app anywhere near my phone), but...

          I was one of the (now two) exemplary labellers. I labelled the comment as such not because I like Zuckerberg, or Facebook (in fact, I wouldn't let Facebook's app anywhere near my phone), but because I wanted to inject a voice of reason into an otherwise reflexive & disappointing discussion that @Deimos is (rightfully) complaining about here.

          Frankly, compared to the remainder of this discussion in this thread, @annadane's comment is exemplary. Because it offers a viewpoint that provides the most reasonable possible interpretation of Zuckerburg's commentary, and acts in good faith.

          And this thread needs a bit of charity, if you ask me.

          8 votes
          1. [2]
            hereticalgorithm
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            I'm upvoting because I appreciate hearing a rationale for the label (since I was confused myself seeing that), and agree that commenting without reading isn't helpful. That said, the principle of...

            I'm upvoting because I appreciate hearing a rationale for the label (since I was confused myself seeing that), and agree that commenting without reading isn't helpful.

            That said, the principle of charity is a starting point, and Zuckerburg has long since exhausted it. As long as a comment engages with the actual content of the article, I don't see why it's necessary to assume good faith from Zuckerberg.

            9 votes
            1. Wes
              Link Parent
              Your comment did, and is the top non-meta comment in the thread (for good reason!). However the next top-comment starts with the phrase "I won’t bother reading this". I believe that's more what is...

              As long as a comment engages with the actual content of the article...

              Your comment did, and is the top non-meta comment in the thread (for good reason!). However the next top-comment starts with the phrase "I won’t bother reading this". I believe that's more what is being addressed in this side-discussion.

              5 votes
          2. Wes
            Link Parent
            I was the other, and for exactly the reasons you laid out. I'm glad that Tildes is usually free of "kneejerk" reactions, and instead gives more consideration to the argument and not the speaker....

            I was the other, and for exactly the reasons you laid out. I'm glad that Tildes is usually free of "kneejerk" reactions, and instead gives more consideration to the argument and not the speaker. That's not to say that considering the speaker isn't important, but dismissing something out of hand isn't constructive and can frankly be quite lazy. I was glad of the call to reason provided by @annadane.

            4 votes
      2. SourceContribute
        Link Parent
        It's bread & circuses and it's been like that forever.

        It's bread & circuses and it's been like that forever.

  3. hereticalgorithm
    (edited )
    Link
    None of this changes the fundamental profit motive driving the design decisions which created these problems (which is an issue beyond Zuck as a person). In fact, these actions are still in line...

    None of this changes the fundamental profit motive driving the design decisions which created these problems (which is an issue beyond Zuck as a person). In fact, these actions are still in line with Facebook's bottom line and likely will only do the bare minimum necessary to look good.

    For instance, Facebook's "creating an independent body so people can appeal our decisions"? How is that going to be independent, if it's defined by Facebook themselves (and likely stacked with people The Algorithm deems appropriate)? This sounds exactly like other corporations' push for "neutral arbitration" which almost always rules in their favor.

    If anything, this is bad news because it convinces the public that these problems are being resolved, and misdirects peoples energy into false solutions and fake representation.

    16 votes
  4. [7]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      To quote Sun Tzu: "Know your enemy." Even if you don't like what Zuckerberg says or does, it still behooves you to read about it, so at least you know what you're dismissing and/or criticising.

      I won’t bother reading this

      To quote Sun Tzu: "Know your enemy." Even if you don't like what Zuckerberg says or does, it still behooves you to read about it, so at least you know what you're dismissing and/or criticising.

      15 votes
    2. [5]
      IanS5
      Link Parent
      He has a seat at the table. He owns enough popular social networks to give him a lot of influence whether we like it or not. Instead of refusing to work with him why not encourage him trying to...

      He has a seat at the table. He owns enough popular social networks to give him a lot of influence whether we like it or not. Instead of refusing to work with him why not encourage him trying to make changes?

      12 votes
      1. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Soptik
          Link Parent
          Note: I'm not the person you replied to. He does have lot of influence in this, more than any other person. If he lost the control, he wouldn't have the influence - but the point is, he has the...

          Note: I'm not the person you replied to.

          Not if they're taken away from him he doesn't.

          He does have lot of influence in this, more than any other person. If he lost the control, he wouldn't have the influence - but the point is, he has the influence and he isn't losing it anywhere soon. Just because you don't like him doesn't make him loose his power and influence. This argument is not worth discussing further.

          Mark Zuckerberg is a problem, not part of a solution. He is not a good faith actor

          I think you're looking at this just from one side. Zuckerberg certainly didn't help with this, but it doesn't mean, that he will not help it, ever. There is still time to change for better. You know, I don't think Zuckerberg believes that he's making the world worse. He thinks that he's making the world better, he just did it in completely wrong way.

          Zuckerberg is one of many that believe they're making the world a better place - and then fuck it up. The only difference is that Zuckerberg has way more power and influence.

          Zuckerberg knows he's not doing well - and he's trying to improve. Let him try. It might actually turn out good

          3 votes
      2. [3]
        Greg
        Link Parent
        Exactly - he has already has the power, and if he truly wants to fix some of the problems he's caused then using that power for good is the way to do so. Throwing it away to leave a vacuum would...

        Exactly - he has already has the power, and if he truly wants to fix some of the problems he's caused then using that power for good is the way to do so. Throwing it away to leave a vacuum would be pretty much the worst possible option.

        He'll need to do an awful lot to regain trust, and honestly I don't believe this is for real, but on the off chance it is he doesn't have much choice but to remain involved.

        3 votes
        1. [3]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [2]
            Greg
            Link Parent
            If he pulls the plug on Facebook, there's a high chance of driving the user base into a fragmented array of siloed, overtly political alternatives. Those currently using Facebook as a vehicle for...

            If he pulls the plug on Facebook, there's a high chance of driving the user base into a fragmented array of siloed, overtly political alternatives. Those currently using Facebook as a vehicle for propaganda would jump at the opportunity to bring users into platforms that they control fully, and splitting the users along self selected political lines amplifies the echo chamber effect.

            End result is an even more extreme and polarised landscape than the one we have now, and less chance to de-escalate as the users are now spread among multiple conflicting platforms.

            1 vote
            1. crdpa
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I don't think this will happen. People will just stay on Instagram or maybe Google will jump at the opportunity since people already uses what comes on Android by default. Inside Facebook people...

              I don't think this will happen. People will just stay on Instagram or maybe Google will jump at the opportunity since people already uses what comes on Android by default.

              Inside Facebook people are already living in bubbles within their political groups. Here in Brazil we have a lot of facebook groups for each side. I don't think it will be worse. And Facebook were already used in a bad way in the elections.

              It will not split users that much because they use social networks and IMs were the majority of people are. In the end, they will find one place.

              But Zuckerberg will never pull the plug on Facebook anyway.

              2 votes
  5. Deimos
    Link
    I'm disappointed with most of the discussion in this thread so far. Reflexive dismissal of anything involving Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg isn't valuable. That's just manually acting like a bot...

    I'm disappointed with most of the discussion in this thread so far. Reflexive dismissal of anything involving Facebook or Mark Zuckerberg isn't valuable. That's just manually acting like a bot looking for keywords in titles, it doesn't make for a discussion.

    I agree that we shouldn't take him at his word, because he's been apologizing and promising things for over 10 years now, and almost none of it has materialized. However, it's still better to at least respond to the content, because it can have value in itself. We don't dismiss other article authors for being "all talk"; they almost always are (and they're supposed to be). We should be able to do the same here.

    14 votes
  6. [3]
    tan
    Link
    This seems rather meaningless when there are no real Facebook alternatives. I read through his entire article and past the PR-speak it just seems to be "We got told off again so we started doing...

    which is why we support a standard data transfer format and the open source Data Transfer Project.

    This seems rather meaningless when there are no real Facebook alternatives. I read through his entire article and past the PR-speak it just seems to be "We got told off again so we started doing some more of the things we should have done years ago" that he's been doing for ever.

    Incremental improvements, yes, but nothing to applaud him for. He's doing this because he's forced to.

    5 votes
    1. [3]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [2]
        Deimos
        Link Parent
        Please don't repeatedly complain about comment labels. That's not contributing anything either.

        Please don't repeatedly complain about comment labels. That's not contributing anything either.

        7 votes
        1. [2]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. Deimos
            Link Parent
            Not elsewhere, I don't think. I was just referring to your two comments in this thread about it.

            Not elsewhere, I don't think. I was just referring to your two comments in this thread about it.

            4 votes
  7. LiberHomo
    Link
    My gut sense is they're just trying to offload responsibility for the damage their platform causes. That kind of attitude is one of the many reasons I stopped using Facebook.

    My gut sense is they're just trying to offload responsibility for the damage their platform causes. That kind of attitude is one of the many reasons I stopped using Facebook.

    4 votes
  8. MetArtScroll
    Link
    As has been already noted here, what Mark Zuckerberg offers would not harm Facebook. He often mentions “regulation” or “legislation.” In his discussion of data protection, he acknowledges the need...

    As has been already noted here, what Mark Zuckerberg offers would not harm Facebook.

    He often mentions “regulation” or “legislation.” In his discussion of data protection, he acknowledges the need for a global standard (since the Internet is global). Should I understand that he supports a global approach in other three areas?

    Now to the four points he makes.

    4. Portability.

    If you share data with one service, you should be able to move it to another.

    ... and completely remove it from the former, I would add. Otherwise, I more or less concur here.

    3. Privacy. I agree it would make sense for websited to have to inform the users everywhere as to what is collected and how it is used. However, what I see more often than not (I am in the EU) is something like “GDPR: our site collects this and this; you have two options: Agree and Leave.”

    2. Election integrity. Again, I more or less concur, though I must admit I might overlook pitfalls here.

    1. Harmful content.

    Internet companies should be accountable for enforcing standards on harmful content.

    we need a more standardized approach

    One idea is for third-party bodies to set standards governing the distribution of harmful content and to measure companies against those standards. Regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.

    What I see here is very similar to the infamous Article 13. Content filters, which only big players will be able to afford.

    No. FUCK NO.

    3 votes
  9. clone1
    Link
    This feels like "all the shady and bad stuff isn't our fault, it's the GOVERNMENT'S. If you want better practices protest against them, not us"

    This feels like "all the shady and bad stuff isn't our fault, it's the GOVERNMENT'S. If you want better practices protest against them, not us"

    2 votes
  10. EsmailELBoB
    Link
    if we really need a good net, first rule will be exclude Mark from net

    if we really need a good net, first rule will be exclude Mark from net