"Facebook wants to trick you into thinking that privacy protections or changes to Section 230 alone will be sufficient. While important, these will not get to the core of the issue, which is that no one truly understands the destructive choices made by Facebook except Facebook. We can afford nothing less than full transparency. As long as Facebook is operating in the shadows, hiding its research from public scrutiny, it is unaccountable. Until the incentives change, Facebook will not change." ~Frances Haugen
I'm skeptical that we'll see any changes come out of Congress, they haven't shown any impetus to go after the horribly-managed monopoly that is Facebook (I suspect lots of lobbyist donations). The courts are a different matter, perhaps they'll put the brakes on this madness.
This is the state of Facebook products in 2021: Our increasingly online society can't live with them and it can't live without them. The social network maddens us — literally. As Haugen's documents confirm, the algorithm is making us angrier
so we'll stay on it longer and look at more ads.
But we keep using Facebook or Messenger or Instagram or WhatsApp anyway, because who can make their friends and family and favorite artists switch services en masse? Facebook is a monopoly like no other: enforced every day by peer pressure (even if those peers might individually prefer to stop using it). The need for our social species to connect as widely and efficiently as possible is just too strong.
Haugen's revelations may be the catalyst — a "Big Tobacco" moment for the tech industry, in the words of one Senator. But the conditions for change have been building for some time. Here's a shortlist of possible outcomes:
Congress or the courts rein it in.
Congress breaks it up — WhatsApp first.
Transparency, please.
Revolt of the users
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Hopefully we can all agree FB is not good for society as it is currently run. But we probably don’t all agree that the government should install some sort of oversight and regulation body. FB and Twitter are already working with the government to censor speech and to decide what information we are allowed to see, so hard pass for me when it comes to congress getting even more control over our lives.
I think revolt is the best option since I don’t know how breaking it up work work. I would also remove their immunity from lawsuits.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Giving government more power is usually a bad thing. I don't mind informing people about the misdeeds of social media. I do have a problem with more federal mission creep. Are we going to do the same with TV news networks that like to get people fired up? Books too? Time to censor 1984? Ban "Animal Farm" for under 18 year olds?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I'm beginning to think we are all being punked here. Trump was largely successful in beating Hillary because he used the power of social media and the left never saw that coming until it was too late. The establishment (both parties and the media) want to be able to control information, much like China does. What better way than to find a highly informed "whistleblower" to take on evil Facebook and make us all feel comfortable with the government 'fixing' the problem. If Trump runs again, the swamp would have control of what they deem as 'misinformation' and be able to censor voices, thus pissing all over the 1st amendment.
I agree social media is harmful to children in many ways, but I really don't think it's that harm that worries them, I think it's the wave of conservatism and pro-American liberty that worries them the most.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
There is speculation that the FB whistle-blower is a Democrat operative. Democrats want to limit the reach of conservatives who post on Facebook. Supposedly the whistle blower also supported suppressing the story of Hunter Biden's laptop before the election.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
It does NOT take a high intellect to understand that anonymity is the culprit. U can photo shop/alter pixels
and be/show anything in soc. media....cat fishing casualties. U can ALSO say most anything (true or not)and create a dangerous drama (child abuse rings). The result of this cyber circus is DEHUMANIZING the
masses,with empathy being a major casualty. PRIVACY,now there is a NOVEL concept. I will never
understand the need to allow the WORLD into my life. I think KUWTK is the genesis of "the world wants to know everything I am doing." The mechanism has become a monster and needs to be beheaded. JMO
HA, I think you and I agree that social media is doing harm in many ways. We already know that the government does influence these platforms, but what if the government also had the ability to control content? What if the government was able to control information and speech on those platforms? Would you be ok with that?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Oh I know it's happening, but it isn't official policy yet. These social media companies want government control to some extent because it makes it harder for competition to enter.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.