Thread by @neil_chilson

THREAD. Mark, I get it. You're trying to do hard things and you're not doing them perfectly. Some you might not be doing well. Some you're doing down right badly. washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-…

Because of these imperfect or failed attempts to solve hard problems, you have a public relations problem. You have a gov relations problem. And you have a compliance problem.

So you want gov to fix it. New Internet regulation solves your PR problem. It solves your GR problem. And for a company with FB resources it solves your compliance problem.

But it DOESN'T solve the real problems, the problems we all want to solve: how to do the hard things well. How does society deal with lies, fraud, threats, and ugly speech? How do we use information productively and respectfully?

These are extremely complex problems that humankind has long been grappling with and which require ongoing adaption by many individuals and institutions across society.

Quick regulatory "fixes" to hard problems can slow or stop needed adaptation. Regulation locks current "solutions" into place. It locks current incumbents (you!) into place. It leaves the base problems there, unsolved, and locks out those who would try something new.

In the early 1900s, another cutting edge tech co faced a hard problem, w/ PR, GR, and compliance issues - AT&T. They struck a deal with the federal gov, solving their PR, GR, & compliance problems - & creating a 60 year monopolist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury…

More regulation & less competition meant decades of same ol' consumer services & devices. Raking in $ while burying innovation threatening to current business models. Decades of the black AT&T phone. Then a BREAKTHROUGH: a pink Princess phone for women. spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/s…

So, Mark, I get it. The Kingsbury Commitment solved a lot of AT&T's problems. Regulating the Internet solves a lot of Facebook's problems.

But it gets in the way of solving the real problems.

.@threadreaderapp unroll