He calls Zuckerberg a "pope-emperor" of Facebook's users, but that's because the users choose to give him power. If the users stop choosing to give him power, he loses it.
what do you call this argument, best of all worlds-ism? So a priori any institution that persists is beneficial to its constituents merely because it continues to exist? Do concepts like power and dependence exist in the kind of worldview that produces these arguments?
Facebook makes money from ad partners not users. Users are not paying Facebook for the software. People who want to run ads are. There is no market for newsfeed software here. Only a market for user attention.
Because FB made a creepy tool 15 years ago they won some users and have an established base they can market to. People using it these days do so because of the network effect not because it’s the best tool to keep in touch with people. Facebook has to maximize time spent with users eyeballs glued to the newsfeed because that’s where ads appear. The friend network portions of the software only exist vestigially at this point to keep people locked in to a newsfeed platform.
Facebook is dependent on their customers but their customers aren't the people glued to the newsfeed, those are the product literally for customers paying for an advertising platform. If it was legal, Facebook would literally chain you to your computer and force you to interact with the world through their platform because that maximizes their profits.
There were social media platforms before them that lost despite the network effects, and there are platforms that have appeared after them that gained a ton of users despite the lock-in (some of which they have bought, which is in my view the only thing about them that should be amenable to regulation). EDIT: based on TFA and only tangentially relevant to this thread/the moral crusade, making sure online tools can be modified/scraped/etc. in any normal way is something else I would regulate. EDIT2: based on the rabbit hole of anti-FB articles, what is needed is more of a DE-regulation, removing or significantly narrowing the scope the of the laws FB uses to threaten developers. It's not that modifying a webpage is not protected, it's that it can explicitly be construed as illegal, in part because of the previous moral crusades.
The users derive some value from Facebook. I'd rather we didn't have holier-than-thou people regulate every pastime they don't like... reminds me of moral panics over everything from video games to weed.
> I don’t think anybody is saying “make Facebook illegal” ... consider whether such machines have any place in a healthy society.
That sounds exactly like a moral crusade. You don't want to make it illegal, but would like to consider if it has "any place", and also someone will have to define "healthy society". If you asked people in many places and times (if not most), they'd tell you homosexuality is an abomination that has no place in a "healthy society". Even at present, some people literally treat it as a disease in need of a cure.
And yes, I think prescription drugs should not be a thing (well, prescriptions are fine but if I want to buy metformin because I think I'm smarter than everyone else I should be able to do it and prove myself right (or wrong).
Tobacco is a perfect example for me personally, because I dislike it, so I feel good about forcing everyone to not smoke. On the other hand, it hurts almost entirely the user, so the only justifiable restrictions would be the ones where the user is imposing costs on others, e.g. charging them more for healthcare... I like the advertising bans, but I would have also liked e.g. never having children around, via e.g. banning them from all restaurants and gyms. Doesn't make it justified.
Well-said! There's a big difference between enacting laws that protect vulnerable groups (eg.: smokers / the public) from powerful influences (eg.: Tobacco companies / propaganda), and enacting laws meant to impose standards of "moral purity". A very big difference.
But, if a company directly contributes to decline in civil discourse and harms democracy, and thereby harms the users, then isn't it a government role to step in? And isn't this the governments role even if users can't see the harm at the micro-level of their daily interactions with the company? I guess that is the argument at least. Really its a balance between values: individual freedom and the collective good.
The chief problem here is “who decides?” If a government in power is being undermined, they have incredibly strong incentives to determine that those undermining actions are “harmful to democracy” (rather than merely harmful to their party). (I think we could point to many examples in US politics in the last 5 years where “this is bad for my party” is cast as “this is bad for democracy!”)
Which is why I think that, of all the speech that must be protected, political speech is of the highest criticality to protect. (And that claims by the government or strongly politically aligned citizens that ‘X is bad for democracy’ should also be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism.)
My mother is surely addicted to facebook. She knows all data implications but she enjoys getting likes/shares etc. And fake news etc which is intentionally specious make the platform even more enjoyable.
I can't tell her to stop facebook and I am sure it is harming her right?
Yes this is government role but as with every government in democracy most of them are vested for short term profits and company like facebook lobbies a lot. We know facebook pushes millions of dollar in lobby so why would government solve it? Also facebook also provides sweet taxes to government.
This is basically what the argument to ban it amounts to whenever this discussion comes up.
Facebook is a simple site, there's nothing to it really. It's just an endless mediocre content website that happens to have your friends on it.
Good user experience = "designed to be addictive by army of ill-wishing psychologists."
The only reason id like to see it banned just so something better can finally take it's place
Better to be addicted to typing words than drugs, it's free and you don't die.
Where is the knite-in-shining-armor-ism? What even is that? Doctorow is asking for for us to build a society where we don't take a company on their word that they will do right by users because he cites multiple examples where a company leader charged as the steward of software integral to peoples’ lives has said they will and then about faced to chase profits. There’s clearly something worth discussing here… Remember how nice and interoperable chat was before Google killed xmpp?
Just like sugary soda, loot crates, cigarettes, and opium then? Companies design products that are bad for people all the time.
> Zuck: they “trust me”
> Zuck: dumb fucks
This was said after his AOL hacking days [1], so he already had a certain predisposition towards "ordinary people".
Given that his history and his present behavior aren't much different, it seems he hasn't changed much. He designs products to extract from people.
[1] https://qf0.github.io/blog/2020/01/28/Mark-Zuckerberg-was-a-...
Doctorow's piece here reads to me as a call for viable alternatives. The prose attempts to advance a number of his favored alternatives, which makes it a little confusing.
To me, I believe we are headed toward a world where social media operates via an open API, like email. The road between here and there will be rocky.
No. Because all your friends are on Facebook. And by buying out all the serious competition (Whats App, Instagram) they have guaranteed a monopolistic position. Even if you move to another place, if will grow too big, odds are it will end up being acquired by FB.
We can turn this to a giant regulate-tech topic but the source complaint, simple enough, was a desire to have the feed consume less of life’s attention and be more worthy of what attention he was giving it.