I don't agree with Facebook's privacy policies and thus have deleted my account and use other platforms. This isn't difficult. This article is tantamount to saying "Woe is me, NYT won't publish my op-ed." and expecting anyone to take you seriously.
Sure, yes, I believe people should leave the platform too. But how do you get a billion people to decide to leave? By talking about problems with the platform. I believe that's what this article does.
It seems like you're suggesting that the article has no purpose (with your "woe is me" characterization). I would disagree with that.
And if anyone is reading this: HN readers, we are the people with the skills to set up a diaspora instance. Yes, your friends aren't using it. Fine. You use it first, and perhaps they will follow. One of my next projects is to set up GNU Social with a feed on my personal website, so I can "tweet" whatever I'd like and know that it will be permanently under my control. There's even Android apps for GNU Social. If you don't like what Facebook is doing, perhaps help support the alternatives?
The same way they left MySpace and other services. People get annoyed enough (or something better comes along) and the network effects start to diminish and the tide flows out.
I disagree. Do you know how many general users have the vaguest ideas what those things are? People en masse use Facebook because other people do - they have very limited of awareness of anything how Facebook skews their view of reality and what limits their communication on the said platform has - until they hit those limits. They just know all of their friends are on the platform, so they must be there too.
Facebook has no more obligation to allow you to write whatever you want on their site than the New York Times has to publish your op-ed piece.
With print media, TV, phone and post, all developed countries have special regulations that ensure these (often privately run) services align with values of democracy (with varying effectiveness).
I think the ideal solution would be to compel Facebook to make its architecture more open. For it to have real APIs, which, among other things, would allow other companies to transition users from Facebook effectively and seamlessly.
This is analogous to the reasoning that says that banks cannot make it unreasonably difficult to switch to another bank by creating admin around direct debits and the like (rules currently being implemented in the UK).
Facebook can engage in whatever kind of censorship it likes as long as the barriers to leaving it are sufficiently low that we can realistically imagine users doing so.
(Unfortunately FB is not a formal monopoly because it's free to users.. so we absolutely do need new legislation).
"The concept of access [to your data] was just alien to them. In the US consent is just a privacy policy and a tick-box approach." "They break democratically decided laws in the EU and get away with it. Instead of putting money into compliance, they expect NGOs and authorities to do that work for them."
The bundle download that Facebook offers (which I have used) doesn't meet those criteria, we can see this because no one has built a business off it.
At the moment Tinder is the only company I'm aware of that really does this, and it's not exactly a corner stone of democracy.
I've no idea why you've written the word compel in speech marks? If it is because you think it is unacceptable to ever compel a private corporation to anything, I'd point out that Facebook and all other corporations are already bound by all kinds of laws, many of which are very widely accepted. Especially relevant here are the laws (and social norms) TV and print organisations adhere to.
Because we can see it's essential for democracy for public discourse to be structured in a certain way, specifically that it not disproportionately represent one person or organisations views.
I can see that in principle people can choose not to use Facebook, but in practice we see that it is very dominant, and so, if a society perceives that a very dominant platform curtails freedom of speech, it's absolutely right to do something about it.
In principle, we might imagine, a newspaper that prints lies will go out of business. But, maybe it won't? In practice, all developed countries have laws against printing untruths.
It's clearly a balance, but if we look at other mediums and the way we've chosen to regulate them, Facebook is a clear outlier. If that's the case we should find the least intrusive way to ensure a single company doesn't have so much control over public discussion.
The idea that everyone freely selects Facebook for their communications because they love its moderation policy doesn't pass the common sense test.
The amount of bandwith for tv stations is limited, the internet is effectivly limitless.
>print media
We don't really. Print media is extremely off limits because it's protected by the First Amendment. Try passing regulation requiring a newspaper to print an image just because you deem it worthy.
>Why do we have libel or defamation law, even?
We don't really, the bar is very high. Also, these laws to apply to things written online, just ask Gawker.
As a consequence, I'm arguing, it would be a good idea to apply a similar approach to Facebook. I'm saying the lightest touch would be to make moving your social network off Facebook easier. Maybe there are other better ideas.
On the topic of print media being off limits... not so. I'm from the UK, I'm not sure exactly about media laws in the US, but the First Amendment does not mean that any publishing company can run just how it likes. Having just Googled I see that there are indeed cross-ownership laws for newspapers in the US. I expect there are many other regulations on print media.
Just as I'm arguing for Facebook, these are not laws about what might ultimately be said - either online or in print - they are laws about how much power a single company can have over the discourse.
It literally does. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government can not make any impositions on print media, save for extreme cases of national security and libel, which also has a very high bar.
Cross ownership is only a thing because they can apply it to the TV half, which again, regulations on TV are made on the justification of their scarcity.
There simply is no equivalent in the US to placing such draconian rules on websites.
I can see your point that Facebook, and the web more generally, does not represent a 'natural' monopoly in the sense that it's not a physical feature of the technology that it is inevitably going to be dominated by a few companies. We could argue that Metcalfe's law actually does make it a natural monopoly.
Either way, it's an empirical fact that Facebook is tremendously dominant, and it seems to me that is the basis for intervention, though of course the intervention should be minimal respect and liberty as much as possible.
I also understand that views on this topic will reflect your wider views on liberty and legislation more generally, but those views ought to be consistent. I think the position that an effective national discourse can be expected to occur exclusively from market forces is extremely dubious, maybe you think differently.
Again, I do think you are mistaken about print media in the US. It seems to me cross-ownership laws do apply to print media, however justified. Much more clearly, copyright laws are applied everywhere.
I think some of these laws are wrong, but there are many precedents for regulating print and the web.
In other words, "You're free to speak, as long as no one can hear you." Nice bait. Look at all your replies.
>Having open speech on Facebook's platform is not an inalienable right.
So long as the government ensures that Facebook is the only platform via patent/copyright/trademark enforcement, I beg to differ. When I can build a Facebook clone of my own and not be sued out of existence for it [1], then you have a valid point. Until then, Facebook isn't greatly different from VKontakte or Renren.
Build your own system or come up with your own great idea. You don't need to copy Facebook any more than they had to copy MySpace.
You just need to put in some original hard work and make it happen. It isn't Facebook's fault you can't come up with something better that people want to use. There's no patent on social networking.
How would it be fair if you invested a billion dollars in code and marketing only to have someone come along and steal your code? You might not like patents, but they will help protect you and your great idea if you every execute on one.
Facebook isn't stopping you from doing anything.
This is a straw man argument. I didn't say violate trademarks. I said trademark enforcement. A small competitor can be wiped out easily with legal costs associated with an extended trademark battle in court.
>Build your own system or come up with your own great idea.
Same straw man. I don't have to violate patents to be sued out of existence.
>There's no patent on social networking.
This statement is categorically false. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=social+network+patent
Has anything like that ever happened? Someone starts a business and a competitor with a completely unrelated name wipes them out with a trademark battle?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-reddys-blocked-from-selling-p...
Don't be a dick. We're having a conversation here. Lots of people in this very thread don't use Facebook.
That is akin to if you don't like it, then leave, which is just a way of avoiding potential solutions to the problem. See ergo decedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo
Of course this is all about advertising. Advertisers want to be associated only with dull, bland speech. This is also why network TV is so bland.
I fail to understand why is this a 'problem'. FB can do as they please (fail or succeed as a consequence), they aren't a tax payer funded institution answerable to the public at large.
In effect, people are dictating how FB should 'run their business'.
Much like the Microsoft anti-trust suits of the early '00s? There was nothing then (just as there is now) that forced people to use Microsoft products; numerous OS and software alternatives existed.
Facebook is currently large enough to distort industries and markets, just as Microsoft once was.
Which were equally bullshit.
People are not completely free to use or not use Facebook. The idea that people are autonomous in their choices is erroneous. Thus, the reason why it's fair to apply additional obligations to companies like Facebook.
Advise to simple "not use it" is harsh as it has a near monopoly as a communication tool for many communities. Without it I certainly would have no idea what happens with my relatives and friends, apart from my absolute nearest (which is another discussion).
And for many places it is the only tool used for near all community communication. Once another or more tools has enough market share (among non techies) you have an actual choice, but atm not really.
I don't think there is any shortage of facebook alternatives out there, both in the messaging business or if you are taking about social networks(diaspora is my favorite btw).
Sure it's hard and annoying to move your friends away from facebook, but honestly is it really worth to bother to keep them friended on facebook. I honestly don't give a crap about knowing what's happening with my most distant relatives, except when I'm meeting then in person and I don't think they feel any different about me, that might just be my personal experience though.
Either way, I think that facebook's selective post display and the fact that you might be away(or busy) when something important to you is displayed on your stream make it an extremely unreliable way to know what's going on unless if you want to see useless news about celebrities.
If I really care, I call.
Fundamental rights and values must/should be upheld by everyone, and if something like Facebook emerges to be a major public forum the relevant rules should apply.
I've deleted my FB account too, but whatever happens on there still affects society and thus everyone.
Where on the internet can I be assured of protection against censorship? I can't think of anywhere.
The public continues to fund the internet in a variety of ways (not just the original ARPANET, but rights-of-way to fiber etc etc) yet has no guarantees of power of expression.