Hacker News Reader

Ugh. I hate these sorts of arguments. "ha! you're outraged? Maybe you're not outraged enough! You do something? Do more, you're not doing enough!". If you tell people "if you stop wasting water you don't solve global warming!" it typically won't entice them to do more; most people will hear "I might as well waste the water, my efforts are meaningless anyway".

> But I digress.

Yes you do. Starting with all that makes the reader feel that "they're not even the worst offenders, Google/Apple/Amazon is probably worse". Which may be true but you present no proof for that and it's not even something that you needed to argue.

> By all means, criticize Facebook if you think they've done something wrong, but don't stop there. Make sure you understand the full scope of the problem

Or stop there if you wish - it's still something. It's certainly better than thinking "I don't have time to understand the full scope, so I'll let others do the criticism".

> I've seen precious little of that.

Well, lead the way. Show us how to do it. Help us understand the full scope of the problem and address it in a general way. Don't just chide people for criticising Facebook.

I don't think he is arguing for more or less outrage, he just wants it directed better. I'd argue that picking out one offender and focusing on them is in some ways worse then focusing on the entire issue.

Facebook being slapped with a massive fine/being broken up might not do a lot to stop the general trading and exchange of users data online, but its enough to get the politicians to say "job done" and move onto the next issue. We need to focus on fixing the issues that allowed the FB/CA scandal to occur, instead of just focusing on the symptom.

> Facebook being slapped with a massive fine/being broken up might not do a lot to stop the general trading and exchange of users data online,

Or it might; the other companies are watching, and precedents do matter.

I honestly don't see how bringing Google/Amazon/Apple into this won't do more harm than good. In fact, if I were Zuckerberg, that's exactly how I would try to mitigate the issue for Facebook.

This is a great example of the impact of the 'ruse of solvency.' A solution which appears to the public to solve a problem yet actually doesn't is oftentimes worse than no solution at all, since it will erode pressure and advocacy by convincing people that the problem is already solved. This is a tactic frequently employed by lobbyists and legislators to cool down a hot issue.

> It might even distract from or interfere with development of a more general solution. But that's exactly the path a lot of people seem to be going

Or it could set a precedent... It has to start somewhere. Maybe Amazon or Google is next.

Were you thinking in general about some legislation? Say something like GDPR?

> Progress doesn't come from everyone saying "me too" on a bug report. It comes from people talking about and then implementing ideas to make the bug stop happening anywhere. I've seen precious little of that.

That happens if there is a common platform everything runs on. Maybe a shared library. You just fix the security bug in it and every application relying on it will benefit (generally speaking). In a way legislation, taxation, treaties, open standards are somewhat like it. When those change it affects everyone. But that is kind of rare, so doing it one instance at a time is still making some progress.

> In a way legislation, taxation, treaties, open standards are somewhat like it. When those change it affects everyone

That's the key: it affects everyone. In constitutional law there's this concept called a bill of attainder, which is a law directed toward a specific person instead of an action. Many constitutions, including that of the US, forbid them. I think any solution to these problems will be as much legislative/regulatory as technical - GDPR is an early model for this - but it has to be about the behavior. Otherwise it's just politicians playing favorites. I've seen some of the replies mention precedent as though it's a good thing, but we hardly need another precedent for the government picking winners and losers.

I've seen precious little of that.

In fact I don't know of any example that required a plurality of people to act, that wound up being anything but a unit fix and not a global fix for a problem.

More than likely someone will go down in flames, everyone will congratulate themselves on a job well done and then it will be business as usual for everyone else doing the same thing. Hell, I'd be surprised if Facebook even takes the hit for this one.