'Treat Facebook Like Big Tobacco' (bloomberg.com) 94
Instead of regulating Facebook like a traditional telecom or media company, Bloomberg Opinion columnist Elaine Ou argues "Facebook should be regulated the same way as other vices like tobacco, alcohol and gambling": Facebook achieved outsize market share with an addictive product. A competing platform would need to do an even better job of exploiting psychological vulnerability to topple the incumbent. But the solution to a harmful industry dominated by a monopoly is not to foster equally harmful competitors; it's to reduce our dependence on the industry as a whole. Regulatory proposals should begin by protecting the youth. Facebook has a messaging app designed for kids under 13, but expecting the platform to protect children from harmful content is like asking the tobacco industry to make a kid-friendly cigarette. There's sort of a conflict of interest going on. If Silicon Valley execs refuse to let their own children use apps, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to market their apps to other people's children either.
A lot of our complacency toward social media platforms stems from a lack of understanding of how they take advantage of emotional vulnerabilities to keep users engaged. This is not unintentional. And much like the tobacco companies that spent four decades denying a link between smoking and lung cancer, Facebook has been equivocal in acknowledging its own harmful effects. That brings us to another response outside the realm of antitrust: Tobacco companies are now required to disclose the contents of their products and open their processing facilities to inspection to reduce information asymmetry between the consumer and manufacturer. The source code behind Facebook's news feed should be made available for inspection as well. The nationwide decline in tobacco use was the result of decades of public awareness campaigns. The government should recognize social media for its psychologically exploitative properties and treat these companies the same way - with restrictions on youth targeting and with publicity about the risks. In closing, Elaine suggests the anti-drug ads depicting a fried egg "can be repurposed to illustrate what your brain looks like at the hands of tech employees who like to 'move fast and break things.'"
A lot of our complacency toward social media platforms stems from a lack of understanding of how they take advantage of emotional vulnerabilities to keep users engaged. This is not unintentional. And much like the tobacco companies that spent four decades denying a link between smoking and lung cancer, Facebook has been equivocal in acknowledging its own harmful effects. That brings us to another response outside the realm of antitrust: Tobacco companies are now required to disclose the contents of their products and open their processing facilities to inspection to reduce information asymmetry between the consumer and manufacturer. The source code behind Facebook's news feed should be made available for inspection as well. The nationwide decline in tobacco use was the result of decades of public awareness campaigns. The government should recognize social media for its psychologically exploitative properties and treat these companies the same way - with restrictions on youth targeting and with publicity about the risks. In closing, Elaine suggests the anti-drug ads depicting a fried egg "can be repurposed to illustrate what your brain looks like at the hands of tech employees who like to 'move fast and break things.'"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are already on our way into John Calhoun's Mouse Utopia [youtube.com], but for humans.
Re: (Score:2)
A refreshing point of view (Score:3)
I agree with the article and the analogy you jokingly strike is apropos.
Facebook is like the faux feel good bonding of MDMA with the paranoid aloneness of a bad weed mood. Even if those are harmless in small amounts prolonged addictive behavior does require your brain in compulsive and dependent ways that alter basic human integrity like self image
It's like hypnotoad only for real
Re: (Score:2)
Does it not have one of its own? And is this a loan or a donation?
No. They WANT regulation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because then it allows them to use regulation to stifle competition, enshrine their fucked-up, two-faced censorship culture, and just generally be bad netizens. With a governmental back-pat.
You want to hit the fuckers where they live?
Remove their Common Carrier protections.
Right now they've been speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
Left: We're PUBLISHERS!
Right: We're EDITORS!
Under Common Carrier, YOU CANNOT BE BOTH.
Full stop. Period. End of discussion.
Then, *YOINK!* and let the lawsuits start.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I want common carrier status removed FOR FACEBOOK.
Because they're abusing it. They operate outside the purview of a common carrier.
And what the fuck are you talking about?
FB are the censors here. And their TOS are set up so that you can be censored for any reason, including no reason whatsoever.
And you, the end user, have NO WAY OF KNOWING what'll get you censored.
They've privatized the Public Square. And now they're the arbiter of who gets to play in it.
NOT
FUCKING
OKAY!
Re: So you want directed laws (Score:2)
Most blogs have clearly delineated URLs and "sites". They don't deep link users like Facebook, Wikipedia, and TVTropes.
Facebook is an aggregate site, like Slashdot in a way.
Facebook is an emotion and popularity driven platform originally designed to attract/benefit vain young ladies.
Is there something we can do facilitate regulation in such a way that news sites, f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then, you'll be happy to learn that Facebook is not and has never been a common carrier (or any kind of carrier, for that matter).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then, you'll be happy to learn that Facebook is not and has never been a common carrier (or any kind of carrier, for that matter).
While true, they are clearly being treated like one. They willfully provide a service which is seemingly designed to enable illegal behavior, like when it offers you clearly discriminatory controls over to whom housing ads are displayed.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. He's not my type.
Re: (Score:2)
I really would like someone to point out exactly how, where, and when Facebook was granted Common Carrier status.
.
.
.
.
(Hint - they are not Common Carriers. Common Carrier only applies to telecommunications services, not to Information Services.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they simultaneously claim to be both. Whichever best serves their needs at a given time.
Re: (Score:2)
47 US Code Ââ230, Paragraph C, (1) and (2), Telecommunications Act.
Facebook and Twitter fall under it due to matching the description of an Interactive Computer service :
(2) Interactive computer service
The term âoeinteractive computer serviceâ means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
The problem is they can be argued to be going against Paragraph C (2) (A), which requires "Good Faith", ie, objectivity. If you find something offensive from 1 person, you find it offensive equally from any other person. If you ban and punish conservatives for speech that you don't ban liberals for, you could be in contradiction
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they regularly claim to be one, and also regularly claim to be an information service.
Alternately, depending on which gets them the most advantage in a discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
How would it regulate a media company that has the protections of the First Amendment?
Will any new laws that affect them, motivated by "facebook won't censor what we want them to", stand up to constitutional scrutiny?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, Facebook does NOT have 1A protections.
They'll TALK a good game about free speech.
But they can (and DO) effectively ban for ANYTHING, including no reason at all.
One day, you're just GONE. No recourse. No explanation. Just GONE.
And if someone presses them on it, they make vague noises about "hate speech" or "abuse" or any of the buzzwords designed to drive the censorious into an unthinking reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the bookface have (external) circuits which carry traffic other than their own? It's not clear why you're bringing up a "common carrier" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, they regularly (and alternately) claim common carrier and information carrier status. All depending on which gains them the most social capital in a discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Remove their Common Carrier protections.
Facebook isn't a common carrier, they don't have any common carrier protections.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet they regularly claim this. Rotating out "information carrier", depending on what they're trying to justify.
Facebook wanted to be AOL and replace WWW (Score:2)
Facebook got what it wanted in replacing the WWW with a walled garden that dolts hardly even use the open internet besides Facebook. As a result, they have put themselves into a being a kind of gatekeeper and provider of all things wrong in humanity. So all the problems that always existed on the internet but lacked somebody to blame and attack now have a target. Every unstoppable and unenforceable thing on the internet can be done with a powerful bottleneck in charge that can be held responsible. Just
Re: (Score:2)
I only came here to express the desire to mod this comment up to +6 Insightful. But I can't ... so +5 it is, plus my own support of it!
Re: (Score:2)
Media is now an additive substance. Can we regulate Netflix like opiods?
"Congress shall pass no law...", therefore, no. Government has tried to redefine speech as behavior, and therefore regulatable, and been body slammed over it.
We know attacks on speech related to making you feel bad are underway already. The next half step to brain monitoring and claims of damage are on the way.
Tough patooties. God help us if someone decides "it hurts peoples' feelings or sensibilities" becomes an argument for censorship. This argument is already used around the world by dictators to fil
Re: (Score:2)
Are TV and movies speech? They certainly managed to regulate those - the one foot on the floor rule, baddies must lose and all that.
lolz - must not be that addicting (Score:2)
Do kids even use facebook any more? My high schoolers don't and neither do their friends, they say "it's what old people use."
I quit facebook about 9 years ago, guess it wasn't that addicting. I was pissed at their selling of personal information
the people I know who like it a lot are keeping up with relatives and friends from back in school. hmmm, doesn't seem self-destructive to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Do kids even use facebook any more? My high schoolers don't and neither do their friends, they say "it's what old people use."
Facebook isn't "just Facebook" anymore - it's Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram now, the latter two being more popular with younger users.
And now Facebook is trying to tie them all into each other, no doubt to thwart regulation by claiming they won't be able to untangle them once that time comes (and it will come).
Re: (Score:2)
lolz, anyone thinking those posts on FaceBook seen by a relative few people had any influence over the election is a moron grasping at straws.
Re: (Score:2)
the people I know who like it a lot are keeping up with relatives and friends from back in school. hmmm, doesn't seem self-destructive to me.
I use it like I used to use USENET, which is to say, to connect with groups of people with shared interests. Yahoo fulfilled that function for a while, now it's Facebook. When those groups go somewhere else, I probably will too.
Think of the children! lol (Score:2)
You know, the same ones that keep the government from restricting what her organization publishes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100% (Score:2)
I could not agree more.
FB is some sort of addictive, ugly phenomenon - a sickness. Yup, I've asked my wife to look up an old friend on FB. I'm ashamed. BTW she has stopped using FB in any way for a year now.
Common carrier? BS! Yes, it is at least as harmful to society as booze and absolutely should be regulated, possibly out of existence. Just my HO.
That's... sobering (Score:2)
If only "taking the red pill" wasn't already taken.
Best to just ban the regulation happy from the net (Score:1)
I have no problem with people who start smoking. It's not like people have any excuse for being uninformed of the dangers or addictive nature of the product. The same thing applies to Facebook. Yea- Facebook utilizes tactics to get you hooked, but so does EVERY OTHER COMPANY. What, you thought those "points", "reward cards", and similar products didn't have that same objective? I NEVER signed up for Facebook. I have a lot more respect for myself than that. If you want to degrade yourself that is your busine
I helped litigate tobacco ... (Score:3)
... and the Toshiba Floppy Disk Controller [nytimes.com] class action lawsuits.
In both matters, the last nail in the coffin was the internal documents, captured in discovery, where the companies actually discussed their deceptive practices years before the lawsuits.
Facebook has those, as well.
corporate personhood (Score:3)
The Supreme Kangaroo Court some years ago informed us that corporations are people too. What would happen if a human person were accused of 1/100 the malfeasance of Faceboot? That person would _never_ be able to prove their innocence in a kangaroo court of law!
So let's treat Faceboot like any other person. Charge it with thousands of imagined crimes. Freeze its assets so it can't hire any lawyers who go golfing with the judge. Hold it in a dungeon where it is sodomized daily with the open knowledge and approval of the guards.
When it's spirit has been broken, make it "confess" to a long list of different imagined crimes. A freely given confession obviously, no duress at all. (Wink, wink..) Then toss it in the Gulag!
C'mon guys, we've built a perfectly good totalitarian police state. Let's put it to use! Stomp Faceboot with the iron boot! Make it confess! Toss it in the Gulag!
Fuck that shit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Treat Facebook Like Big Tobacco (Score:3)
I can get on board with that.
Facebook = Tobacco? Really? (Score:2)
Does using Facebook make your clothes smell like an ashtray?
Does Facebook cause you to get lung cancer.
Does Facebook exacerbate the effects of inhaling asbestos?
Does Facebook cost 20 for 5 minutes of use?
Is Mark Zuckerberg cuter than Joe Camel?
Because um (Score:2)
insulting hyperbole (Score:2)
In closing, Elaine suggests the anti-drug ads depicting a fried egg "can be repurposed to illustrate what your brain looks like at the hands of tech employees who like to 'move fast and break things.'"
Dramatic click bait statements are insulting to the friends and family of people who struggle with real drug addiction. Heroine is a real demon that hijacks a person's brain and turns them into something else. Doing the clicky-clicky on the facebook all day is a form of escapism and anti-social behavior that is extremely fucking mild in comparison to the sort of drugs the "fried egg" PSA talks about.
PS - "anti-drug ads" ... nobody is advertising to sell you some "anti-drug". It's a public service announceme
Re: (Score:2)
So if we invent a drug ten times worse than heroine, you'll be just fine if I turn around and call you a dopey snowflake? Right?
Because the existence of something ten times worse would make the heroine conversation not even worth starting, and indeed, it would almost amount to a poke in the eye to those suffering from a real heroine * 10 addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
So if we invent a drug ten times worse than heroine, you'll be just fine if I turn around and call you a dopey snowflake? Right?
10 times? No. Maybe 10000 times before we could completely ignore heroine.
But I'll bite, if the scale and social problems for Hypothetical X are 10 times worse than heroine then I'd use different phrasing in the future. Since Hypothetical X is only your hypothetical argument, I don't need to apologize for anything at this time.
Treat it like big tobacco? (Score:2)
"This is your brain sober..." (Score:1)
".... and this is your brain watching your middle-aged relatives argue about politics on Facebook."
*Insert picture of fried egg brain*