Mark Zuckerberg Again Calls for Big Tech to be Regulated (marketwatch.com) 87
Mark Zuckerberg wrote an op-ed published in The Financial Times "once again calling for more regulation of Big Tech," reports MarketWatch, "even if it affects his company's bottom line."
Zuckerberg has previously called for more government regulation of internet companies, and reiterated his arguments in favor of laws covering four major areas: elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability. "I don't think private companies should make so many decisions alone when they touch on fundamental democratic values," he wrote, adding: "We have to balance promoting innovation and research against protecting people's privacy and security."
Zuckerberg warned that regulation could have "unintended consequences, especially for small businesses that can't do sophisticated data analysis and marketing on their own...."
At his Munich appearance, Zuckerberg spoke about what type of regulation he envisioned: "Right now there are two frameworks that I think people have for existing industries — there's like newspapers and existing media, and then there's the telco-type model, which is 'the data just flows through you', but you're not going to hold a telco responsible if someone says something harmful on a phone line... I actually think where we should be is somewhere in between," he said, according to Reuters.
Reuters also reports that Zuckerberg said Facebook is already employing 35,000 people to review online content and implement security measures.
"Those teams and Facebook's automated technology currently suspend more than 1 million fake accounts each day, he said, adding that 'the vast majority are detected within minutes of signing up.'"
Zuckerberg warned that regulation could have "unintended consequences, especially for small businesses that can't do sophisticated data analysis and marketing on their own...."
At his Munich appearance, Zuckerberg spoke about what type of regulation he envisioned: "Right now there are two frameworks that I think people have for existing industries — there's like newspapers and existing media, and then there's the telco-type model, which is 'the data just flows through you', but you're not going to hold a telco responsible if someone says something harmful on a phone line... I actually think where we should be is somewhere in between," he said, according to Reuters.
Reuters also reports that Zuckerberg said Facebook is already employing 35,000 people to review online content and implement security measures.
"Those teams and Facebook's automated technology currently suspend more than 1 million fake accounts each day, he said, adding that 'the vast majority are detected within minutes of signing up.'"
Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, Facebook can legally make their own speech policies (which doesn't mean those policies are necessarily good).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also he wants to blame government, not himself, and hold the competitors to the same standards, legally rather than the honor system. He wins either way.
Re: Unlikely (Score:1)
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps he's worried that Facebook and co might find themselves treated as the traditional news media are, hence his stated desire for 'something inbetween', before it's too late:)
In the USA this might not be that likely but elsewhere as countries become more and more annoyed...
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, free markets and all that. I prefer functioning markets, and those very much require the government to step in every now and then, especially in cases of monopoly or oligopoly. Competition is key, and if there isn't really any, the monopoly should be bound by additional rules and obligations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of social media is that it's not P2P. We had email for that, and the first thing people started doing was CC'ing in a hundred other people.
Decentralized social media might work but will require legislation forcing the big platforms like Facebook to open up their APIs for data exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are free to stay on FB if they want; but i'm sure momentum will build in favor of P2P over time.
You do realize history is saying the opposite, right? Email, irc, blogs, usenet it all used to be more decentralized than today. Name one thing that's gone in the direction of more decentralized since the death of Napster.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook can die on the vine. Screw em. I'm talking about a whole new platform open sourced. People are free to stay on FB if they want; but i'm sure momentum will build in favor of P2P over time.
The problem with an open source P2P social media is funding. Facebook is funded by advertising. There is very little incentive to build an open source social media platform if you can't control it and profit from it. In order to get critical mass, it will take a significant amount of money to get it off the ground.
That being said, it's not impossible. Facebook is worth more than half a billion dollars so even getting a fraction of their customers could be profitable if you could monetize them somehow bu
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine the kinds of regulation he wants is less restriction on his app's behavior by "monopoly" smarphone platforms, as well as hobbling other ad networks so Facebook retains some of its advertising value.
It's less about limiting Facebook than it is building in protection for Facebook from its other big tech rivals. Facebook's biggest vulnerabilities don't seem to be spreading fake news or other dysfunctional public communications, but the fact that as a platform its hindered from innovation by its ow
Re: (Score:3)
When the EU brings in regulations like that they usually exclude small businesses, say under 50 people. For example the proposals on removing content when requested by a government agency only have the strict time limits in place for larger companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold them accoubtable for speech and not pre-censoring in the way certain factions want!
No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment says government can't make laws that prohibit companies from abusing your privacy? Wow, that constitution changed since the last time I looked at it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the same. Your concern is only one of the four issues. Maybe one and a half.
"Take my liability! Please." (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't seem to understand what Zuckerberg is really saying here. He just wants an orderly market with his position at the top legally defined as part of the "natural order". Removal of liability because the (federal) government will have legally defined the legal lines more clearly, with Facebook on the legal side and the competitors on the wrong side. At least if any of his bribes have anything to say about it. (He may well be counting on Trump to ram the new rules down the throats of other nations. Why else the secret dinner?)
I think I have a better idea. Force the tech companies to regulate themselves if they want to increase their profits. The key is to push for REAL competition. Not Facebook or phuck-off, but Facebook or some other flavor of a social website that offers similar services, but better. Surely can't do worse on the privacy.
Concrete suggestion one: Progressive profits tax linked to market share. Precisely because Facebook is so dominant, their tax rate would skyrocket justifying dividing the company into two (or more) competing entities. From a technical perspective, they can still offer a global perspective via an industry standard, but no longer as profitable to make that standard an in-house monopoly-driving standard. (Just to make it clear, you'd still see your friends' data and shared information in a similar way, even if they were hosting it elsewhere.)
Concrete suggestion two: This one's new, but I think stock buybacks have to be made illegal again to prevent the worst abuses of corporate cancerism. How can a corporation possibly avoid insider trading of itself? That legalization (from the '80s) is obviously one of the drivers of the insane stock market bubble.
Re: (Score:3)
"Progressive profits tax linked to market share. " Normally I'd think this an idea worth investigating. However, we know what will happen: companies will get their toadies on any federal board whose job is it to ascertain market share. We already see an example in the FCC. And this alleged administration is even worse as they have already slimed the EPA and a few others. As long as the government acts like a whore, there's no leveling the playing field using government oversight.
Re: (Score:1)
If government oversight is failing, it is because voter oversight of the government is failing. They waste their efforts voting for more pork and against each other instead of voting for good governance. The government is a mirror, a very accurate reflection
Re: (Score:2)
Public companies have to disclose lots of information. The data required to assess market share is currently mostly hidden, but it could be added to the list of information that has to be disclosed.
However, I certainly agree with you that the gamers are going to continue gaming the system. ANY system.
The reason I think this approach might work fairly well is because the underlying principles are clear, so new games can be assessed against those principles. The primary objective is to increase freedom by cre
Re: (Score:3)
The FTC seems to be regulating broadcast mediums like TV and radio just fine. The law also regulates certain kinds of content on social media, via copyright and via penalties for distributing things like illegal images.
There are also regulations on other types of expression such as political campaigning.
So it seems like there is plenty of scope to regulate social networks.
Re: (Score:2)
The FTC seems to be regulating broadcast mediums like TV and radio just fine.
Yeah, the older courts were more willing to regulate free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
It is probable that the US government can't make any significant laws regulating posting on Facebook, because then they do run into first amendment issues. Recent supreme courts have been really opposed to laws that regulate speech.
That's not the issue. It's the issue of who's responsible when speech does break the law, e.g. hate speech or defamation of character. In these cases, the 1st amendment is irrelevant.
Print & broadcast media are regulated to make them accountable for what they publish & broadcast. What do news organisations do? Nowadays, they gather news from various sources & republished/rebroadcast it, along with some spin & some editorial work. If they print or rebroadcast advertising, they're accountable
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the issue. It's the issue of who's responsible when speech does break the law, e.g. hate speech or defamation of character. In these cases, the 1st amendment
Hate speech is not illegal in the US, due to the first amendment.
Re: Unlikely (Score:2)
The solution is so simple and yet he doesnt want to implement it. Hoe many of you out there during holiday gathering either have, or go somewhere that has, a policy of - no conversations about religion or politics - ?
This rule has been common since as far back as I can remember in the early 80s. Before then I was too young to pay attention to such things. I bet the rules predate Nixon.
Facebook could EASILY have a rule banning all discord, links, or ads, pertaining to religion or politics. A church group can
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you mean the Jews are behind the government too? There's nothing they cannot do, I hear they've genetically altered horses into pink unicorns. They are even behind the UFOs. Nothing, nothing is beyond their reach.
Can I have some of what you smoke?
I guess this is the equivalent of (Score:2)
a double dog dare to Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Gen Z was dumping Facebook for Instagram.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
a double dog dare to Congress.
No.
Regulation is generally not an issue to a monopolist incumbent. Doubly so if it is a multinational.
It is guaranteed to kill any new entrants, because they cannot recoup compliance costs.
This is Commander Data securing his monopoly by any means necessary.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the assholes claiming they should be paying higher taxes...NOTHING IS STOPPING YOU!!
If you think you should be regulated, just make the regulations you think you should be operating under your fucking corporate policies. Nothing is stopping you!!
Similarly, if you think you should be paying more taxes, shit e fuck up and write out a check to the U.S. Treasury. Nothing is stopping you!!
If you are not doing these two things, while simultaneously spouting off about how you should be more heavily regulated or paying more taxes, you are just full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Zuckerberg knows that. It's probably cheaper to get the government to do the regulation though (well, the monitoring). So, yeah, nothing is stopping his company doing it except that it's cheaper to get someone else to do it. I doubt that Zuckerberg doesn't know this and it seems to be a plausible explanation for his stance
Re: (Score:1)
I'd prefer something useful like paid trainees in Facebook and its subsidiaries.
What do taxes have to do with "elections, harmful content, privacy and data portability"? Paying more taxes won't make the government responsible, or the politicians competent, or the laws better.
A fair market is stopping him (Score:5, Informative)
What he is saying is he supports regulation as long as everyone is equally regulated.
If Facebook self imposed regulation they would be at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors. Doing this would actually be illegal unless he could make a sound argument as to how it would improve revenue. Corporations are not charities and the CEO is legally obligated to make decisions in the interest of shareholders.
Re: A fair market is stopping him (Score:3)
There is nothing illegal about companies aspiring to higher than the minimum required by the law.
CEOs have a wide latitude to do as they see fit in the best interests of their organisations. Shareholders can then fire them if they believe their strategy is flawed and they are unwilling to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing illegal about it.
Hell, companies donate shareholder revenue to various 3rd parties all the time. That hardly increases revenue, and definitely isn't in the interest of all of the shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing this would actually be illegal unless he could make a sound argument as to how it would improve revenue. Corporations are not charities and the CEO is legally obligated to make decisions in the interest of shareholders.
I keep seeing this misinformation being repeated on Slashdot. It's simply untrue. CEOs are NOT legally obligated to make decisions in the interest of their shareholders. They are obligated to make decisions in the interest of their business in accordance with how the company has declared that it will pursue that business.
If a for-profit, public company says that they will seek to maximize something other than their shareholders' return on investment, that's perfectly acceptable. They'll lose out on potentia
Re: Oh bullshit (Score:2)
I have never heard anyone makes the claims you indicate about drought, sand or taxes.
Re: Oh bullshit (Score:2)
You are off your rocker.
I said ABC and you are claiming I said 123.
what i think is real reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it would be the rightist snowflakes that got offended. They seem to be a delicate lot.
keeping competitors out (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason he wants regulation is to create a barrier to entry for any smaller startup that might become a competitor. This is a typical move by large companies, asking to regulate their industry, with the real motive being to drive up costs to compete and drive away potential competitors.
Self-regulation is a thankless minefield!!!! (Score:2)
This is a typical move by large companies, asking to regulate their industry, with the real motive being to drive up costs to compete and drive away potential competitors.
That is possible, but I think it's more probable that Zuckerberg and co doesn't like the shitstorm they waded into. Imposing regulation sucks....do something smart, a small minority of shitheads cry about their freedom of speech and civil rights because you take down photos of their grandpa in a klan hood....even the smart choices...the edge conditions are a real bitch to deal with. Strangling a woman?..pretty bad, but what if it's an art installation, her choice in porn, or something designed to promote
Unexpected candor (Score:4, Interesting)
"Zuckerberg warned that regulation could have 'unintended consequences, especially for small businesses that can't do sophisticated data analysis and marketing on their own....'"
That's some unexpected candor about what happens when large monopolies direct the government's response to issues in their field. Unless there is real advocacy for the rest of society, They tend to direct action towards what will squash their competition. The government regulation winds up being protection of the monopoly. Need examples? Witness the plight of small farmers who fulfill every criterion for supplying small food, but who cannot jump through all the hoops to get certified.
Yet the problem is so egregious, it has to be addressed. The conversation has got to be inclusive. Citizens have got to be involved, or else corporations and public apathy will have one sure outcome.
Steps to success (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Request regulation of your industry so nobody else can replicate what you've done and displace you.
3. Enjoy your now-government-protected near-monopoly.
Re: Steps to success (Score:2)
That is easily solvable - just change the law to - if the revenue is more than X amount, these regulations apply. For the smaller players, this helps mitigate risks
Zuck needs to shut his pie-hole up. (Score:2)
yeah bullshit. (Score:2)
more regulation of Big Tech! (Score:1)
Yes! Gotta kneecap Little Tech before it can catch up..
Good idea (Score:2)
But let's start with Facebook, not use government to ensure nobody can repeat your unparalleled abuse of the privacy of your users.
internal FB memo (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Facebook employees. There have been some misconceptions going around recently about what we do and why we do it. So, upper management wants to clarify a few things. Read this carefully. We are a company that's publicly listed but essentially privately controlled. We are driven by profit and nothing else. We make most of our profit by selling ads. At our core, WE ARE AN ADVERTISING COMPANY. Never forget that. This is what we do. This is why we exist. Nothing more, nothing less. The social media platform is nothing but a loss leader - a honeypot and delivery platform that lets us collect the user data that helps us sell targeted ads. WE WILL NOT VOLUNTARILY DO ANYTHING THAT GETS IN THE WAY OF MONETIZING THIS DATA. Always remember who our customers really are. Our customers are the ad companies. They are the ones that matter. The users are the product. We care about the quality of the product but we have no moral obligation to it. Yes, upper management refers to users as "it" instead of "them". This is a practice that should spread across the company.
Our CEO is currently on a charm offensive to convince the public that Facebook cares about the users. We don't. Our CEO is claiming that he wants regulation. He doesn't. This is a PR campaign meant for the public - it is not to be taken seriously within the company. In reality, we will quietly work to assassinate any legislation or regulation that restricts our ability to sell ads or user data. If you don't like any of this you can 1) keep quiet, 2) leave the company, or 3) find yourself "redundant". Hopefully this clarifies our policies.
Holy cow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course he is an asshole. Didn't you see the movie?
Standard rent seeking behavior. (Score:4, Insightful)
The dominant player in a field often calls for increased regulation in order to make the cost of entry higher for possible competitors. Hence, I'm always suspicious of calls for more regulation by such players.
Does anyone know if Zuckerberg was calling for increased regulation ten years ago?
Nice censorship talk for EU nations (Score:1)
The vast distance keeps the world from ever finding out about the very different versions.
Been a telco, network, charity, publisher, supporter of a gov, been into extra censorship, allowing freedom after speech, efforts to better report speech.
A different chat to fit in with any gov.
Either telco or newspaper (Score:3, Interesting)
He's not up to the job (Score:2)
Misleading (Score:1)
"Zuckerberg again calls for the government to regulate start-up competition out of existence"
Fixed that headline for you... Zuck doesn't give a shit about "fundamental democratic values", he just wants the oppressive weight of governmental regulation to help capsize any potential competition. Regulatory hurdles are easy for huge corporations that can devote a department to managing them, they're death for a small start-up that can barely afford to come to market.
censorship (Score:1)
What he really wants is censorship. He is a collaborator with the establishment and what he really means is censorship. It's just that he is the man and this is the way to ask for it that misleads the most. He pretends to be worried about opression and abuse from the big companys, however this will end in quicker, stronger censorship, and Facebook can even then argue "It's not us, it's the government who deleted your post and is about to jail you"
Honeypot (Score:1)
If it hurts Facebooks bottom line ... (Score:2)
... what will it do to Facebooks competition?
Also "regulating" a company the size of Facebook could easily become a case of the tail wagging the dog, e.g. when "coordinating" policies, writing "drafts" for legislation, structuring this censoring apparatus and good old revolving door politics.
This could result in Facebook not only "regulating" their own content, but also defining the rules for others.
Meh (Score:1)
Fuck Zuckerberg, heâ(TM)s a puppet.
it's called... (Score:2)
... leading by example.
Just don't... (Score:2)
Sure, Zuck. Just don't regulate Facebook's right to help spread lies and disinformation, right?
He wants the government to build him a moat (Score:2)
Basically, Zuckerberg would really like government to implement regulations that he can obviously afford but would be very costly for any would be competitors.
There is nothing stopping him from adopting a more ethical position with regards the areas that he believes should be regulated better, especially given the dominance in the social media sphere.
Big Facebook (Score:3)
his comments are on youtube (Score:2)
Congress... (Score:2)
Failbook... (Score:1)
BIG Business always calls for regulations (Score:2)
That is how franchises are protected