Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, Phi for All said: What I'm hearing is that because FB targeting tools can be used for good, it's silly to hold the company responsible, even a little bit, when those same tools are easily used for evil. And I can't get the similarity with American gun culture out of my mind. Many folks also think it's silly to hold the people who make and sell the guns partially responsible for the mayhem they cause, too. We regulate banks when we find their practices allow illegal activity. I think FB deserves no less. That's not what I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Phi for All said: What I'm hearing is that because FB targeting tools can be used for good, it's silly to hold the company responsible, even a little bit, when those same tools are easily used for evil. And I can't get the similarity with American gun culture out of my mind. Many folks also think it's silly to hold the people who make and sell the guns partially responsible for the mayhem they cause, too. We regulate banks when we find their practices allow illegal activity. I think FB deserves no less. FB et al definitely needs regulatory oversight. It's starting here in Europe but I imagine it will not emerge in the US in Trump's America. He's seems to be dismantling everything that is trying to protect people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2018 Author Share Posted August 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, Ten oz said: That's not what I posted. Correction, what I'm mainly hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, StringJunky said: FB et al definitely needs regulatory oversight. No. Internet does not need regulation. Otherwise you will end up in highly censored Internet and complete lack of privacy.. 4 minutes ago, StringJunky said: He's seems to be dismantling everything that is trying to protect people. Protection of privacy and freedom of Internet is beyond Trump.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2018 Author Share Posted August 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sensei said: No. Internet does not need regulation. Otherwise you will end up in highly censored Internet and complete lack of privacy.. Ah, like the Second Amendment argument for guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Sensei said: No. Internet does not need regulation. Otherwise you will end up in highly censored Internet and complete lack of privacy. How do you conflate FB with 'The Internet'? Just now, Phi for All said: Ah, like the Second Amendment argument for guns. Slippery slope argument. It's funny how a lot of people are polarised either one way or the other and never seek a balance between two extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, StringJunky said: How do you conflate FB with 'The Internet'? Laws are not prepared for certain company, but are general, without mention of name of company.. ps. Did you watch Mark Zuckerberg testimony in Washington? I did. (search YouTube and watch) Senators etc. had no bloody idea even what to ask... That's job for programmer to examine other programmer... Edited August 22, 2018 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Sensei said: Laws are not prepared for certain company, but are general, without mention of name of company.. Laws target a set of undesirable behaviours. Certain types of companies have those behaviors as part of their modus operandi. Edited August 22, 2018 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Ah, like the Second Amendment argument for guns. indeed, if we just let people decide whats right for them then... who wins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Correction, what I'm mainly hearing. It isn't a one sizes fits all. Regulators should be mindful of areas where people have been disenfranchised or which have been exploited by criminal activity and regulate according. The process should be fluid and change as needed. I think people have taken too much of an all our nothing attitude towards free enterprise and speech on the internet. More and more we are seeing crimes exploiting the lax attention paid towards regulations online. It is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, StringJunky said: Laws target a set of undesirable behaviours. Certain types of companies have those behaviors as part of their modus operandi. Zuckerberg understands that entire value of his company is in trust of people. If they will stop trusting FB, it will be gone.. He is the most (at least should be) interested to FB being as trustful as possible in such environment.. Laws-makers (U.S. politicians) have no idea how it all works.. It's impossible in such environment to make any senseful laws, and the one which they can make will be invigilation-friendly, privacy-antifriendly, censorship-friendly, etc. etc. Even if the all law-makers in U.S. would be programmers, I would be against Internet regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Sensei said: Laws are not prepared for certain company, but are general, without mention of name of company.. ps. Did you watch Mark Zuckerberg testimony in Washington? I did. (search YouTube and watch) Senators etc. had no bloody idea even what to ask... That's job for programmer to examine other programmer... The Federal Communication Committee (FCC) has never been adequately updated to regulate the internet as they do TV and Radio. Now that we have clearly passed the precipice were people receive the majority of their news and marketing information online vs TV/Radio Regulators need to evolve. Edited August 22, 2018 by Ten oz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Ten oz said: It isn't a one sizes fits all. Regulators should be mindful of areas where people have been disenfranchised or which have been exploited by criminal activity and regulate according. The process should be fluid and change as needed. I think people have taken too much of an all our nothing attitude towards free enterprise and speech on the internet. More and more we are seeing crimes exploiting the lax attention paid towards regulations online. It is a problem. 2 Ultimately it is... Edited August 22, 2018 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The Federal Communication Committee (FCC) has never been adequately updated to regular the internet as they do TV and Radio. There is finite amount of frequencies at which TV/radio can broadcast. Regulation in TV/radio has to assign one frequency to certain broadcasting company (otherwise they would interfere each other). Internet has no such obvious limits (domain name is assigned by the first one who made purchase, so no conflict which needs to be resolved by the law). Complete different media. Russia (under influence of V.P.) already implemented unacceptable laws that even web bloggers have to register, and are unable to write anything what is against line of the main ruling party (obvious consequence of having to register.. beating by "unknown perpetrators" etc.).. 27 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Now that we have clearly passed the precipice were people receive the majority of their news and marketing information online vs TV/Radio Regulators need to evolve. Nonsense. If D.T. would be at charge while making such law, you would get banned the all medias which are spreading "fake news", according to his personal opinion and judgement... Edited August 22, 2018 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Ultimately it is... The marketing Pornography, Alcohol, Tobacco, businesses are all regulated differently than hair salons and Real Estate. Different rules can and do apply for different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Sensei said: Laws are not prepared for certain company, but are general, without mention of name of company.. Actually some are specific, most are general. In both the UK (including its former territories) and the US the construction of railways, roads and other facilities often apply to a named organisation and allow that organisation to ride roughshod over individual rights and ownerships. This, of course is very big business indeed. Edited August 22, 2018 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, Sensei said: Nonsense. If D.T. would be at charge while making such law, you would get banned the all medias which are spreading "fake news", according to his personal opinion and judgement... CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, and the other "Fake News" outlets D.T. cries about are doing just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, Sensei said: Russia (under influence of W.P.) already... WP? What does that stand for, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2018 Author Share Posted August 22, 2018 30 minutes ago, Ten oz said: It isn't a one sizes fits all. Do I seem to be saying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Ten oz said: CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, and the other "Fake News" outlets D.T. cries about are doing just fine. Just because there is not (yet) Internet/TV/Radio laws similar like in authoritarian countries.. Just few post ago you was supporter of Internet regulations.. 17 minutes ago, iNow said: WP? What does that stand for, please? Let it be Russian V.P. (or V.V.P.) now it's clearer? Edited August 22, 2018 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sensei said: Let it be Russian V.P. now it's clearer? I assumed so. Thx for confirming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Do I seem to be saying that? Absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The marketing Pornography, Alcohol, Tobacco, businesses are all regulated differently than hair salons and Real Estate. None of which changes my answer... Marketing, a method of persuasion that enables profit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten oz Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, Sensei said: Just because there is not (yet) Internet/TV/Radio laws similar like in authoritarian countries.. Just few post ago you was supporter of Internet regulation.. Any country can change there laws at anytime. Laws are fluid. Doing nothing doesn't change that reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2018 Author Share Posted August 22, 2018 49 minutes ago, Sensei said: Laws are not prepared for certain company, but are general, without mention of name of company. Not entirely true, and the point has been made that FB is fairly unique in business history. And in the US, laws can be enacted that can only be fulfilled by a single company. The Halliburton no-bid contracts during the Iraq invasion are an example, as well as the legislation that allowed General Electric to spend $84M lobbying for exemptions only they could meet the criteria for, gaining them $8.4B in tax reductions. So maybe we need regulations that don't name FB specifically, but can only apply to them. It's clear to me, at least, that the current situation is being heavily abused, in a manner that's difficult to investigate. 17 minutes ago, Sensei said: Just because there is not (yet) Internet/TV/Radio laws similar like in authoritarian countries.. Just few post ago you was supporter of Internet regulation.. First you use a 2nd Amendment argument, now you're questioning whether we support the troops?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now