While this could not have happened to a more deserving company, I worry about "targeted regulation," where a company that angers politicians for one reason gets to face additional obstacles for another reason. businessinsider.com/facebook-could… via @businessinsider
Where was the FTC when these mergers were taking place? What did they think FB would buy other companies for, if not to integrate their products with them? Who at FTC okayed these deals when they happened, and why do they get to keep their job now?
Democracies must be run on principles, not at the whim and discretion of lawmakers or regulators.
I'd fully agree with a principle that says "you cannot weaken the end-to-end encryption in consumer products." Let's hear them say it.
The principle can't be "we don't like you."
I'd fully agree with a principle that says "you cannot weaken the end-to-end encryption in consumer products." Let's hear them say it.
The principle can't be "we don't like you."
That said, Facebook has an internal culture of "we don't give a rat's ass about you, you, or you." They cavalierly exposed people's location, probably led to deaths. They sold our democracy to Cambridge Analytica and others.
They continue to use their ML technology for making money but not for curbing socially damaging discourse.
I've argued before that the right action for the regulators is to take away Facebook's (and others') Section 230 immunity for damages arising from the content they show us, if they also show ads around that same content. You profit off of fake news? You get to pay damages.
