TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Regulation could protect Facebook, not punish it

181 pointsby shahoceanabout 7 years ago

14 comments

beefieldabout 7 years ago
I can think of three relevant regulations for (large) internet companies<p>1. Strong anti-monopoly regulation. There is no reason for Facebook owning Whatsapp &amp; Instagram.<p>2. Once your revenue exceeds x million USD on ad supported services that are free for end users, you must offer the service also for money with reasonable margin on top of the actual production costs, with strong guarantees that the data of end user who has opted for paid service is kept private and not monetized anyhow.<p>3. Once your revenue on ad supported services that are free to end users exceed y million USD, you must make easily available every single usage of the end user&#x27;s data. Also, user must have right to prohibit any specific type of use of user&#x27;s data.
评论 #16675370 未加载
评论 #16675891 未加载
评论 #16675272 未加载
评论 #16677816 未加载
评论 #16675254 未加载
评论 #16675270 未加载
twblalockabout 7 years ago
It&#x27;s well known at this point that regulations tend to protect incumbents in many industries by making it more expensive for startups to compete.<p>Industry support for regulations can seem counter-intuitive -- why would a company want to increase its cost of doing business? But it makes sense when you consider that the costs are an anti-competitive weapon. One example is when Philip Morris supported FDA regulations of cigarettes: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slate.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;business&#x2F;moneybox&#x2F;2002&#x2F;07&#x2F;smoke_screen.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slate.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;business&#x2F;moneybox&#x2F;2002&#x2F;07&#x2F;smok...</a><p>So, we should be very careful about how we regulate companies&#x27; use of customer data, lest we make it even more difficult for Facebook&#x27;s competitors.
评论 #16676949 未加载
评论 #16675477 未加载
评论 #16675326 未加载
walterbellabout 7 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;deeplinks&#x2F;2018&#x2F;03&#x2F;how-fosta-will-get-hollywood-filters-theyve-long-wanted" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;deeplinks&#x2F;2018&#x2F;03&#x2F;how-fosta-will-get-hol...</a><p><i>&quot;The not-so-secret goal of SESTA and FOSTA is made even more clear in a letter from Oracle. “Any start-up has access to low cost and virtually unlimited computing power and to advanced analytics, artificial intelligence and filtering software,” wrote Oracle Senior VP Kenneth Glueck. In his view, Internet companies shouldn’t “blindly run platforms with no control of the content.”<p>That comment helps explain why we’re seeing support for FOSTA and SESTA from odd corners of the economy: some companies will prosper if online speech is subject to tight control. An Internet that’s policed by “copyright bots” is what major film and record studios have advocated for more than a decade now. Algorithms and artificial intelligence have made major advances in recent years, and some content companies have used those advances as part of a push for mandatory, proactive filters. That’s what they mean by phrases like “notice-and-stay-down,” and that’s what messages like the Oracle letter are really all about.&quot;</i>
评论 #16675164 未加载
AndrewKemendoabout 7 years ago
<i>Techies take the job because they wake up each day believing that they’re having a massive positive influence by connecting the world.</i><p>I don&#x27;t think this is really the case anymore - at least from the FB engineers I know.<p>Great engineers are at FB because they get to deploy really interesting projects on the largest platforms in the world with best in class technologies, or get to work on cutting edge AI research (FAIR) or interfaces (Oculus).<p>The whole &quot;connect the world&quot; thing seems to be an afterthought at best for most.
评论 #16676345 未加载
bsbechtelabout 7 years ago
A good way to think about regulation and Facebook might be, would you rather continue using Facebook, knowing the government is supposedly regulating them, but you can never know for sure, or would you rather move on to a new and more interesting platform where privacy and security defaults are integrated into the platform from day one? Regulation that Facebook can point to and say, &quot;See, we are following to rules!&quot; will make it harder to convince your friends to leave Facebook.
评论 #16677878 未加载
arztabout 7 years ago
In investment parlance the government would build them a moat. Companies with capital to maintain compliance will have a head start on any startup looking to unseat them. Should this come, it will be a lot harder to start a startup.
protomythabout 7 years ago
If regulators really wanted to stop the abuse by Facebook and every ad company, they would outlaw the collection of any tracking data of users on any website except the ones you own (website operators have security needs). Embedded content in other websites (via any means including iframes) not owned by your company could not record tracking data or insert data into the user&#x27;s browser (e.g. cookies, custom urls, Web SQL Databases). Any sharing of user data with other companies is illegal. Cannot abuse what you don&#x27;t have.<p>I expect any legislation to make competition with Facebook very difficult.
andrew-luckerabout 7 years ago
privacy regulations = Facebook loses. compliance regulations = Facebook wins.
cinquembabout 7 years ago
I think that future (social) data-mining startups will need to address these things in order to be regulatory agnostic (on top of the general product&#x2F;market fit):<p>- solving the decentralized infrastructure: as nodes get taken offline, they can replace themselves, and service is still usable<p>- solving payments for services to third parties that aren&#x27;t directly the users: cannot rely on traditional payments infrastructure, since that is easily co-opted by regulatory bodies and be used agaisnt the developers&#x2F;owners of such services since those have traditionally tied ones identity to such payment information.
IBMabout 7 years ago
Privacy regulations have value independent of its effects on competition. Making a Rube Goldberg argument about how it might end up benefiting Facebook ignores that fact.<p>The solution to market dominance is antitrust enforcement.
评论 #16677498 未加载
otakucodeabout 7 years ago
That is the typical situation. Regulation protects the entrenched large organizations who are mostly &#x27;grandfathered&#x27; in and set the standard for what is permissible. And it then shelters the giants from competition coming from smaller organizations. This is how companies ossify themselves into the larger structure of government.
908087about 7 years ago
The whole &quot;we shouldn&#x27;t regulate Facebook because it will help Facebook&quot; thing really seems like an underhanded attempt at tricking privacy advocates and others to fight against their own best interests.<p>In reality, it depends entirely on the details of the regulations.
osteeleabout 7 years ago
danah boyd wrote in a 2010 essay (“Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated”, <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zephoria.org&#x2F;thoughts&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2010&#x2F;05&#x2F;15&#x2F;facebook-is-a-utility-utilities-get-regulated.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zephoria.org&#x2F;thoughts&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2010&#x2F;05&#x2F;15&#x2F;faceboo...</a>):<p>“In my post yesterday, I emphasized that what’s at stake with Facebook today is not about privacy or publicity but informed consent and choice. Facebook speaks of itself as a utility while also telling people they have a choice. But there’s a conflict here. We know this conflict deeply in the United States. When it comes to utilities like water, power, sewage, Internet, etc., I am constantly told that I have a choice. But like hell I’d choose Comcast if I had a choice. Still, I subscribe to Comcast. Begrudgingly. Because the “choice” I have is Internet or no Internet.<p>“I hate all of the utilities in my life. Venomous hatred. And because they’re monopolies, they feel no need to make me appreciate them. Cuz they know that I’m not going to give up water, power, sewage, or the Internet out of spite. Nor will most people give up Facebook, regardless of how much they grow to hate them.”<p>and<p>“Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand, people flip out, governments threaten regulation, and companies back off. This is not what’s happening with Facebook. Why? Because they know people won’t leave and Facebook doesn’t think that regulators matter. In our public discourse, we keep talking about the former and ignoring the latter. We can talk about alternatives to Facebook until we’re blue in the face and we can point to the handful of people who are leaving as “proof” that Facebook will decline, but that’s because we’re fooling ourselves. If Facebook is a utility – and I strongly believe it is – the handful of people who are building cabins in the woods to get away from the evil utility companies are irrelevant in light of all of the people who will suck up and deal with the utility to live in the city. This is going to come down to regulation, whether we like it or not.<p>“The problem is that we in the tech industry don’t like regulation. Not because we’re evil but because we know that regulation tends to make a mess of things. We like the threat of regulation and we hope that it will keep things at bay without actually requiring stupidity. So somehow, the social norm has been to push as far as possible and then pull back quickly when regulatory threats emerge. Of course, there have been exceptions. And I work for one of them. Two decades ago, Microsoft was as arrogant as they come and they didn’t balk at the threat of regulation. As a result, the company spent years mired in regulatory hell. And being painted as evil. The company still lives with that weight and the guilt wrt they company’s historical hubris is palpable throughout the industry.<p>“I cannot imagine that Facebook wants to be regulated, but I fear that it thinks that it won’t be. There’s cockiness in the air. Personally, I don’t care whether or not Facebook alone gets regulated, but regulation’s impact tends to extend much further than one company. And I worry about what kinds of regulation we’ll see. Don’t get me wrong: I think that regulators will come in with the best of intentions; they often (but not always) do. I just think that what they decide will have unintended consequences that are far more harmful than helpful and this makes me angry at Facebook for playing chicken with them. I’m not a libertarian but I’ve come to respect libertarian fears of government regulation because regulation often does backfire in some of the most frustrating ways. (A few weeks ago, I wrote a letter to be included in the COPPA hearings outlining why the intention behind COPPA was great and the result dreadful.) The difference is that I’m not so against regulation as to not welcome it when people are being screwed. And sadly, I think that we’re getting there. I just wish that Facebook would’ve taken a more responsible path so that we wouldn’t have to deal with what’s coming. And I wish that they’d realize that the people they’re screwing are those who are most vulnerable already, those whose voices they’ll never hear if they don’t make an effort.”
mkempeabout 7 years ago
What other reasons would there be for Zuckerberg to <i>invite</i> regulation of the social networks his company dominates?