Unbounded, unbridled data-mining & monetizing is Facebook's business model.
Ethically-sourced data-mining is an oxymoron.
Zuckerberg's data-mining was felonious from the first.
His unethical practices to create "Facemash," his "Hot Or Not" Harvard clone, got him hauled in front of Harvard's disciplinary board. He was charged with breaching security/violating copyrights/violating individual privacy. (Harvard Crimson, 11/19/03)
Feeding our data to Obama in 2012, gratis, was felonious.
In this Disinformation Age, whoever controls speech controls the world.
Algorithmically banning malicious enemies of America also captures loyal Americans and denies them their constitutional rights.
More pernicious, creeping algorithmic banning, e.g., shadowbanning, ghost banning, is a way for hyperpartisan social media sites and others to censor dissent, and to do so stealthily: The victim often doesn't realize that he is banned.
Algorithms—vs. AlGore rhythms—rule the world. Hard to believe—the latter was the lesser evil.
The ironic state of affairs: Facebook et al. censor speech from alternative news sources that they deem unacceptable, as they promote the agitprop of MSM, whose lies of omission & commission & whose shadowbanning of dissenters are increasingly a primary operating principle.
Facebook, Twitter, etc. are opaque, untouchable threats to democracy. But so are our neo-Pravda news sites.
5
A quick reminder for those who would like to delete Facebook and keep their data:
1/ Login to Facebook.com and head to Settings
2/ At the bottom of the General tab click on "Download a copy of your Facebook data."
3/ Select what you would like to keep and click "Create File"
4/ Wait until your data is ready to download. You will receive a notification. Then click "Download".
5/ Enter your account password, then wait for the download to complete.
6/ Use this link to delete your account: https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account
Should you want to go further in protecting privacy, I can also recommend using the Swiss-based company ProtonMail (https://protonmail.com/) for email, and DuckDuckGo as search engine (https://duckduckgo.com/). It's also good to use an ad and invasive content blocking extension to one's browser that can lets non-invasive ads through (which fund e.g. the NYT) and is able to block social media trackers such as the "Like" button by Facebook.
2
I have asked this question many times on the NYT comment board and it never gets published. Maybe this time, since it is particularly relevant. Why does the NYT support and promulgate and almost necessitate the use of Facebook. It is one of three ways to sign in to use the NYT website. It is included as a way to share articles. Does the NYT not profit from its association with Facebook? The condemnation of the Editorial Board rings hollow when its parent corporation is in bed with Facebook.
5
What’s being regulated? An infotainment propaganda device/process? The freedom of a private-sector propagandist (Zucky) to sell the entertainment filth of “Rap” music? Or is it, the constitutional right of us, to be lied to by charlatan’s and do-gooder conservatives; by liberals, radicals, and suppository salesmen?
What is it; this Facebook? What is it supposed to be? It is obviously useful as a tool to devise, prepare, hold, and transmit propaganda. But such tools are (e.g., radio, television, google, the New York Times); under this country’s Bill of Rights, supposed to be free. Free for their owners to fashion and fill with whatever lies (about erectile dysfunction, Hillary Clinton, the Donald; and Oprah), earn them the most return on their investments. And, which gives to each of us consumers (freely), their lies; the most enjoyable experiences; and satisfactions. As, we each, individually determine.
The Bill of Rights essentially says, neither Zucky the “pusher”; nor we the junkies; are to be regulated. Least of all, by the organs of State power.
Now this does not mean, that either real or imagined well defined enemies, the Russians, CHINA! and; in a special appearance NORTH KOREA, will not be really or imaginably in or transmitted by Zucky. But it is the price of freedom.
Its just like finding cigarettes for sale in a drug store, right next to the anti-smoking campaign signs, and the nicotine patches.
"Only in America" - Don King (Promoter)
2
Delay, Deny and Deflect...followed by Apologize, Promise, Ignore...but first and foremost, LIE...pg.3 FaceRook Employee Manual
5
Wait a second. I thought Trump willfully collaborated with the Russians, on his own accord, except...... nobody can find any evidence, after 18 months of looking. Now you point your jaundiced finger elsewhere, and feign further outrage?
If you don't agree, just hit the "thumbs down" button, and move on to your next emergency. This is an idiot nation.
5
What's really wrong here is so many people needing and depending on Facebook to run their lives.
It's ridiculous that almost everything that goes around asks to be "liked" on FB.
Herd nonsense.
3
By being on the fb platform, one is fueling conditions that control/manipulate our information thereby feeding the beast/FANG equities. In so doing, we bypass the hard won common public good.We suffer collectively.
An Economist editorial in January 2018 basically identified... " Just as America drew up sophisticated rules about intellectual property in the 19th century, so it needs a new set of laws to govern the ownership and exchange of data, with the aim of giving solid rights to individuals. "
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/01/18/how-to-tame-the-tech-titans
So, we understood this and exercised control over our own information.No more fb.... even if it meant giving up all those puppy solar eclipse videos.
2
Facebook was and is about making Mark Zuckerberg, and his cohorts, very rich. He has never been concerned for the good of anyone but himself. But here's the thing - when a problem is discovered and the first instinct is to hire lobbyists, donate to politicians - and hire relatives - then get a PR firm to push back, now you have a problem and it's called a cover up. Next step, front page of New York Times and a Frontline documentary.
For such smart people they took the usual way out - deny and deny some more, apologize saying you were too stupid to notice, and then blame your critics. That way never works, never, yet like insanity, those living in the wealthy, entitled bubble keep on trying it.
Not so smart after all.
4
No Human Beings, and no organizations of Human Beings can be Trusted to Regulate Themselves or Itself......
They are all mere mortals....weakness is human.
1
Facebook should be monitored
1
When you have a company started by a brash, totally inexperienced, college student, this is what you get. Zuckerberg holds the power at Facebook and answers to no one. There are no experienced, insightful, thinkers with power to change things. It's completely ridiculous to have complex issues of privacy, democracy, trust, information integrity, polarization, and so on, in the hands of a software programmer.
3
I do completely agree that they are too large, too predatory, and need to be regulated. However, our government officials have literally no idea as to how to accomplish this. Their knowledge of data driven businesses, the subtitles of the models, and the future state of their plans make this industry very challenging to construct "regulations". I fear that they will simply spend time and miss the mark as lobbyists manipulate the outcomes. The entire issue of trying to regulate content is a dud. FB's real abuses center around using their platforms in predatory manners to kill competitors including Snap and more recently competitors to Whatsapp. The government needs to split the business+place control of user access and data in the hands of consumers.
1
No company, organization can be trusted to police themselves. Look at the church.
5
There are three main issues with Facebook and other social media.
1. Freedom of speech: Do we want to have Facebook and the rest become the filters for what we read? Do we want them to “protect” us from being contaminated by foreign sources? Under the First Amendment, we have a right to get information from abroad, and we also have the right to read stupid and evenly blatantly false information, regardless whether the source is domestic or foreign.
2. Antitrust: Big Tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter have dominant positions in their respective markets. They are, thus, similar to public utilities and should not be allowed to discriminate. In Europe, Art. 102 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) prohibits discriminatory conduct. A similar approach in the USA with Big Tech would prevent these companies from playing Big Brother by giving preferential treatment to some views over others.
3. Data protection: The Europeans recently adopted the General Data Protection Regulation which limits the extent to which personal data can be used. Everyone reading this comment has certainly wondered why they start getting advertising emails after conducting a search or simply getting such emails that are triggered by the individual’s age, gender etc. Most of us have certainly wondered what is happening with our privacy.
These are points that both political parties should be addressing with a sense of urgency.
3
Mark Zuckerberg has lied under oath to Congress at least 5 times.
Why has there been no action on that?
6
Once Facebook hired a Republican firm to try to discredit opposing groups, it picked sides in US politics. More than 50% of Americans and many more around the world opposes them. Big mistake. Facebook might as well be Gab.
3
This is a sad state of affairs for people like me who truly enjoy Facebook communication with family and friends.
I agree that it should be regulated and that the ongoing misuse of the platform be stopped.
1
Of course the NY Times thinks the government should be regulating how we communicate online. There's no problem in the world that the Times doesn't think can be solved by government regulation. I wonder, is the Times ready to have the content of its own online sites regulated and restricted by by the government, like in China? What could possibly go wrong? Personally, I'd rather figure out the validity of what I'm looking at myself, rather than having the feds restrict the content of the Internet.
2
Can anyone here tell me exactly what "regulation" of Facebook would look like? Who would do this regulating, and under which set of rules (current or yet-to-be invented)? Be specific, as criminals have a right to know the crimes they are being accused of. Thanks.
4
@Ed L.Ed L.
An Economist editorial in January 2018 basically identified... " Just as America drew up sophisticated rules about intellectual property in the 19th century, so it needs a new set of laws to govern the ownership and exchange of data, with the aim of giving solid rights to individuals. " https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/01/18/how-to-tame-the-tech-titans
2
Super interesting editorial.
Brannon had the original vision of influencing people through social media according to his biography. All that’s needed is a big friendly platform.
Emphasis on friendly.
There is too much money to be made from Facebook to hope or expect it can be regulated. The solution must come from the opposite direction. People have to stop being so guillible. Anything of a poltical nature must be eyed with great skepticism. And painful as it may be, people must learn that things they don't want to hear may in fact be true, and vice-versa.
If we are vigilant, over time, sites like Facebook will be discredited as sources of accurate information. Folks will still be able to exchange photos of their grandkids so no worries there.
Let us treat social media like phishing, or phone calls that trick people into giving out their credit card numbers.
2
Like almost all large corporations, Facebook needs public regulation, even in its own corporate interest. Conservative hostility to all and any kind of regulation simply ignores the harm that unfettered capitalism does do the public interest.
4
Facebook with 2.7bn active users is not easy or ours to control.
Undoubtedly the platform is out of control. One could do a lot of things. One could nationalize facebook and let the U.S. government deal with the problems. One could do the minimal: every ad posted should have a link to its source and funding. Let us not forget that facebook was instrumental in the Arab Spring something we approve of. Nobody really including Zuckerberg probably understands all the issues raised by FB.
2
We look forward to hearing FB executives' "Thank you, Chairman Cicilline, ranking member..." introductions again and again and again and again in coming months. Because these greedy, irresponsible incompetents deserve it.
1
Zuckerberg touts Facebook as a "community builder" although the concept of Facebook arose from Zuckerberg's original idea at Harvard of an app that was used to judge the appearances of female college students. Facebook was born from a cruel impulse of malice and spite, and in its present incarnation is the perfect vehicle for dissemination of hateful, carefully targeted Russian propaganda. Rubles, yuan, all currencies accepted -- no questions asked. Pictures of babies and puppies certainly are cute, but Facebook's enabling of shady political manipulation on a massive scale is just plain ugly.
6
Zuckerberg is a tone-deaf kid who believes in his own press releases. Sandberg is genuinely evil. I have worked with people like her in many venues. No good comes from them.
3
It begs the question.
Can the NY Times be trusted to regulate itself?
7
@Maurice Gatien
I laughed, but integrity and reputation play a monumental role in every business endeavor. In this way businessmen do self-regulate, every single day. Newspapers are no different. A dirty reporter can damage a newspaper the same way a salmonella outbreak can ruin a poultry plant. Reputation is everything. Facebook knows this too, of course, but they are treading uncharted territory and making up the rules as they go, often faster than they can be hobbled by legislators barely capable of operating a DVR.
Urgent, topics for legislators, so many burning platforms:
1) The news publisher issue (and the freedom from liability that Facebook enjoys while carrying much of the content of genuine news publishers, who have real legal constraints). News is a big 'puller' of people onto the platform (standing on the shoulders, they are)..
2) Monopoly power and kill zone issues (and let's not fall for resistance along the line of 'China will overtake us')
3) Privacy and data carelessness
4) Deliberate algorithmic manipulation of users' data to prolong their engagement and maximize ad dollars (psychographic profiling, the creepy stuff)
5) Apps and listening over smartphones, data linking across devices
6) Ill effects on teens and young people traversing formative experiences (trollings, exclusions etc)
Lord Acton's dictum applies here.
2
Facebook only amplifies and exposes to the naive what already exists. People resist thinking, use motivated reasoning, avoid inconvenient truths (to coin a phrase), and indulge biases. How many posts in the Times, contain lazy, broad phrases like 'you liberals" and "Trump supporters". Did Peter Strzok really smell the deplorables at Walmart? No matter, he is an example of a so-called educated and discerning professional, who in private sound just like a Facebook post. Regulating Facebook will not change how lazy and anti-intellectual we really are as human beings. For those of us who just now realize this because Facebook finally brought it to your screen, get out more and do better. Read more, too. Manipulating information goes back to the Romans and farther. Julius Caesar wrote the Gallic Wars in third person, to make it seem objective, when it was his own PR campaign. The antidote to Facebook is anthema to so many Facebook users-getting out, talking to people, reading closely and deeply from a variety of views, and being with and among people most of the time.
Watching Zuckerbergs testimony before Congress was telling. With emotionless stoicism, he defended his company, and made promises he had no intention of keeping, and hasn’t. Certainly companies with such international reach are breaking new ground since they traffic in thought and opinion. Since they like so many other Silicon based information tech organizations have an obvious left leaning bent, it is a challenge to protect the views and opinions of those with a different political philosophy without being censors.
November 16, 2018
A long time in coming the Facebook incompetence in understand the theory of advanced communications technology - and it impact to abuses, invasions, and the stupidity of federal regulations in the electronic bandwidth so to speak - indeed, ... to much chic chat in disguise of politics and intentional mismanagement on all levels and then let's not speak of what the users vociferous vanity and gossips gone mega dramatico .....
1
Do Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg not understand that when Facebook is used to commit a crime; it has become/been used as a weapon?
I can't see their claim that Facebook is just a "platform" standing with any foundation much longer.
The claim of infinite/perpetual neutrality is juvenile.
1
@NHTXMS If I use a phone or a car is it not a weapon? Should we evaluate Verizon and Ford for how we can use their products? We have become a society that wants to blame someone other than the real culprits. Facebook heavily policing their users would be a major issue.
3
@John We have a body of product liability law. We don't always apply strict liability...but, we do have liability concepts and laws.
Facebook is on record for having studied the most effective ways to manipulate its users and developing software and interfaces to exactly that.
Occasionally, manufacturers produce defective/dangerous products; and, occasionally, they are held responsible for these products; the Ford Pinto comes to mind.
Facebook's design to manipulate users may dangerous.
2
If one watches the 'InfeKtion' NY Times Op-Ed, this disinformation campaign that exploited divisions in western liberal society has its roots way before Mr. Zuckerberg created Facebook. So, assigning blame to one company is a bit unfair.
Having said that, many Facebook employees, the best and brightest the country has to offer, live out fabulous lives profiting from its users and that is immoral at its core.
It is also fair to draw parallels to the traders/bankers who profited from subprime back in 2008. Has anyone been regulated or indicted back then? So, why Facebook now?
1
Facebook considers all of us a "product". They will do whatever it takes to increase ad venue and profits from us.
They cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
3
I can't prove it, but I believe that Mark Zuckerberg, like his mentor Peter Thiel, is a right-winger who has been for a long time intentionally using his company to help the Republican party.
How else to explain that all of his company's "blunders" have had the effect of helping the right-wingers?
1
If Congress does hold more hearings the questioners should be the aides and the pages of Congress. The dinosaurs on the committee know nothing about technology and showed their ignorance with every question. "The Facebook" indeed!
2
The Facebook model is fundamentally flawed from the prespective of a Facebook user -- Facebook owns your data, and you do not.
3
Facebook's top executives have seemed unwilling to recognize that there are bad players on the world's stage. Not every nation has altruistic aims when dealing with its neighbors or in the case of Russia, with free democracies. Or look at the situation in Myanmar where the bad actors are the government trying to exterminate its own citizens, the Rohingya. Facebook faces culpability there as well.
I sincerely hope that the new Congress can rein in some of the worst elements of Facebook through well thought out regulations. This seems to me, like where having new, young representatives is a plus. Also, I think Zuckerberg needs to take a backseat.
All Facebook has to do is post a warning in bright red stating “ All contents in Facebook are fake unless verified independently”.
1
Right idea. Wrong problem.
Facebook would be better regulated
by the FDA. It's systems are designed
to create a dopamine loop that keeps
users engaged in search of likes. I would
suggest that this is doing more to break
apart the norms of society than Russian trolls.
It’s time to get tough on social media sites like Facebook.
By default all posts on Facebook should be constrained to unlimited views by the ‘friend group’ of the person making the posts and have a small budget of page views available for the general Facebook audience. After the budget of general page views is consumed, the post would not be actively displayed outside the ‘friend group’ unless someone elected to visit the home page of the person who made the post. People would be free to manually repost content they approve of.
Any content submitted for distribution to a mass audience by a company, organisation, government, political organisation or the news media should be moderated and fact checked at the cost of the submitter. The posts made by popular users should be subject to moderation.
Facebook application programming interfaces that allow “bots” to post to the site or extract user information should be banned.
Access to marketing capabilities should be controlled by Facebook using a Facebook-defined online interactive web user interface.
This set of constraints would reimpose the traditional method by which human society has moderated unacceptable content - we ignore it and do not repeat it. If we think something is a good idea, we may take the time to repeat it.
1
"‘Facebook Cannot Be Trusted to Regulate Itself’
How many times must we re-learn this sad fact of life.
Be it Wall Street, bankers, meat packers, mine operators, gun owners, realtors, poultry plants, loan originators, farm operations, oil drillers, and polluters of every stripe, we let them run free with our insipid GOP buzzwords about "freedom" or "free markets" or "they're big boys."
Inevitably the mud hits the fan, another disaster unfolds, the guilty make off with billions, the innocents get punished, and the cycle starts over. Nothing changes. No one goes to prison.
Our Congress is the original "Pinball Wizard" ... the deaf, dumb and blind kid who keeps the games going forever. What, me worry?
3
What kind of people get their news from Facebook? And how is anyone harmed by sharing of information they post on a public platform? It seems to me that the real story here is that millions of Americans have cole slaw for brains.
1
Perhaps someone out there can tell me what chances we have to protect our privacy when nearly every concentration of societal power is firmly set against us?
1. Corporations want to sell to us at the maximum price we can afford.
2. Tech companies follow our every move, click and query to monetize.
3. Law enforcement is terrified of communications going "dark."
4. National security interests want to watch every movement and action to prevent terrorism.
5. Google has become the single largest contributor to lobbying in the history of the world, not to mention other communications companies ...
6. Public schools have moved wholesale to store our student's every written thought in profiles for future use.
7. and the list goes on and on...
How can "we the people" counter such a confluence of power?
@Paul Central CA, age 59
but is this in fact a confluence of power? or is what you describe exactly the opposite, i.e. information sharing becoming more decentralized, in the hands of many actors?
@pierre
It is many hands ALL working to eliminate privacy. Same goal, therefore confluence of interests.
(above I should have mentioned that the "profiles" used in our public schools are stored on Google's cloud, for that corporation's use at a later date)
To the gentleman who said a Congressional oversight committee by Representative Cicilline is no match for Facebook, never ferret out the essential facts and abuses (let alone federal crimes, and organize them into a compelling strategy for controlling this sprawling monster, I say the following:
1. He underestimates this outstanding young representative of the people, David Cicilline from the smallest state in the union.
2. He has the fire in his belly for justice and the principles of republic that Theodore Roosevelt had when he took on the huge "trusts" at the turn of the last century and won even when judges refused to enforce the new Antitrust laws so vital to the public good
3. Few people learn from history, and Americans in particular are among the least able or willing to do so. We cannot have hope at all for reclaiming this democratic republic without becoming students of civics and governance in their glory days. Take for instance the remarkable, massive accomplishment of Senator Frank Church , a Democrat, who teamed up with Howard Baker, a distinguished Republican, to lay bare in 1976 all the horrors of intelligence gathering by our own apparently all-powerful governmental agencies.
Facebook is big, but a relatively small right-minded committee or cluster of public representatives has prevailed in the past and can do so again.
2.
1
Facebook will do whatever it wants as long as people insist on using it.
3
Those of you who log into the New York Times or ther sites using their facebook account should pay attention to the fact they know everything you do on that site - what articles you read, what comments you write, what ads you click. Same goes for Google log ins.
Do yourself a favor. Get a domain name and set up your own private email account(s). Tell your browser not to remember log in information (which requires a cookie be set) and to reject all third-party cookies. Use private browsing mode and do not store history. Close your browser after every visit; use a new private window for every new log in. It is only by concerted effort you will not have FB or Google following your every move.
People who check "stay logged in" are asking for trouble and putting money in Zuckerberg's pocket every time they come online.
3
The Editorial's recommendation, for Congress to generate answers by asking questions of Facebook, is deeply problematic.
When, earlier this year, Mr. Zuckerberg appeared before various Congressional committees, it was painfully clear that most (nearly all?) members have no idea how social media works in general, and Facebook in particular. Because of this willful ignorance, Mr. Zuckerberg breezed through the proceedings, avoiding any reckoning for his platform's part in electing Mr. Trump.
Thus, unless enough members of Congress, and especially the relevant oversight subcommittees, do their homework, there is no reason to believe Congress can effectively balance the many interests in play here.
1
The essential problem is that Facebook created a mouse trap that attracts millions of people to a forum where they can exchange and communicate. Facebook exploits users of that forum by collecting massive amounts of personal information to sell and enrich itself. Their motto is making the world more open and connected, but their purpose is to make money of people's personal information.
Not too worry. I am sure the secrete hand of the market will take of everything.
Just go back to sleep now.
You all realize that FB also tracks anyone that clicks on a page with their logo or sign-in using their FB log-in.?!
Take a look at your NYT web page.
Guess who's watching.
4
Russian posts during the election were less than .00000001% of Facebook's traffic during the election according to the NYT's own reporting on the matter a year ago (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.html), but apparently Americans are so easily swayed that even info graphics full of misspellings that appear in their social media feeds for a few seconds are a threat to Democracy.
What really underscores how little the general public understands social media, to me, is not that this influence campaign enjoyed any amount of success, it's how much the public overestimates its impact. If Democracy can't survive something this small we have no hope. Just pack it in now and save yourself the anxiety, get ready for Mad Max world.
1
The argument that none of this bad behavior matters because it was some tiny fraction of Facebook traffic for the whole year is spurious.
Facebook’s whole business is targeting messages and advertising and they are very good at it.
Overall it may have been a fraction of Facebook traffic, but Facebook’s technology made sure those messages were seen by the users who were primed to vote for a certain candidate and who were willing to circulate the disinformation.
How about severing your Facebook link NYT?
8
I still wonder why Trump lit up and smiled when Putin approached him at recent Paris meeting while he trashed talk our long time allies France, UK, Canada, Germany . I understand Putin helped elect him but they attacked our election system our democracy and Trump never says one bad word about Putin. Could it be his personal finances as his sons claimed plenty of money came from Russia or he is compromised in either case Trump is the president of the United States and needs to put our interests above his own finances. Russian intel is notorious for compromising powerful business and political leaders, Trump has a lot to be compromised by Felix Sater his Russian mafia partner with offices in TRump Tower. I trust the democratic House will investigate any corruption by the Trump family and expose it all before 2020 so he does not get re-elected.
2
"Facebook’s business model, which is based on selling advertising on the back of user engagement," is similar to that of a newspaper or any other other media company.
If the New York Times publishes something defamatory, they can be sued for libel. If posts on Facebook are found to be false and harmful, then Facebook should be responsible for compensating the the party harmed. The fact that it would be extremely difficult for Facebook to review billions of posts is not a reason to absolve them of their duty.
If posts on Facebook violated election laws, Facebook should be prosecuted. No new regulations are needed. Facebook should be treated like any other media company.
Encouraging government oversight of media companies seems like an odd position for the New York Times to be taking. The New York Times should ask President Trump if he has any thoughts on regulations that would prevent media companies from publishing fake news.
1
If the Editorial Board of the NY Times is suggesting regulating Facebook why don't they take the little (f) off each article until it is regulated.
Facebook cannot regulate itself and it should be regulated before we have another election in 2020 an another big dumpster fire.
6
IMO attempting to regulate speech b/c gullible people decide to use Facebook as a news source or others look for something/anything on the net to validate/support any view they might have is wrong in approach and a dangerous blow to the First Amendment.
1
I have been off facebook for nine months with no ill effects. I can see where if you have a small business you may need to disseminate information broadly. Otherwise, we retirees can easily email pics of grandchildren, pets and vacations via email and text messaging. As someone commented, NYTimes needs to find an alternative to the "f" at the top of each article. In this day and age surely someone can come up with a way of sharing without using facebook.
2
People can vote by quitting Facebook and Instagram like I did.
Lawmakers must break Facebook into three separate companies with heavy oversight and regulations: Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp.
1
The theme of this Editorial is on target. But the NYTimes' s use of Facebook as the first log-on puts readers in a dilemma: If readers agree with your assessment of Facebook, then they should suspend their Facebook accounts until the investigations clear the Company of potential serious misdeeds OR if they should continue embracing Facebook as if no serious questions about its corporate behavior were in question.
2
Who needs Facebook? Of all my friends and acquaintances all the ones with higher intellects shun Facebook (and social media in general) like the plague. So do I.
1
Yes, oversight is definitely needed, time to start thinking instead of clicking. But it's a tricky one, who decides what that entails, the parameters, what is acceptable and why and for whom?
A long-term solution (oversight depends on who is in power) is an excellent education for all (not that which has come to pass for it) – being taught how to use one's mind, critical thinking, wisdom, responsibility, self-reflection, discipline. Yes, it may take generations to become the norm, but we really should start working on it now. We have been stalling for too long, trying to replace it with technology, algorithms, click, click, click, to the detriment of our species, its future, our brains, our minds. Evolution has a way of diminishing and disappearing organs that are not used.
Facebook and other internet platforms reside on an unusual plane where news and entertainment overlap. Consequently, I'm hesitant to look toward regulation as a solution for fear that whatever restrictions that could be applied to them could also be applied to dedicated news outlets (newspapers, network, and local tv and radio stations), given how they rely heavily if not exclusively on their internet presence to drive revenue. But news outlets also rely on subscriptions for delivery of content, and news and fact is their primary reason for being. Facebook appears to be driven solely by the desire to increase its share price.
Perhaps the solution is to make social media subscription-based. Yes, there'd be a significant loss of ad revenue, but at the same time, it would reduce its attractiveness to those who choose to manipulate thought and bend facts to their own ends. It would also allow for standards to be put into place regarding the veracity of advertisements and postings promoted by institutional account holders. The Federal Trade Commission regulates advertising in traditional media; regulation of internet ads has been a long time coming and as we can see, desperately needed.
1
To blame this problem on "let the buyer beware" is not appropriate. There is little to be aware of in an entirely new business model for which the public and executives are making up as time evolves. To add that executive decisions that have repeatedly misled its customers by selling data without customer knowledge and then lying to Congress is more of the same from greedy capitalism unchecked by a Republican and complicit Democratic Congress. Thanks to the NYT for putting this viewpoint with their powerful voice. We need Teddy Roosevelt or someone with the same nerve.
When a major corporation has a motto of "move fast and break things" why are we surprised that everything including individual privacy and democracy is included? No corporation or CEO, especially with that amount of money in play, can be trusted to self regulate. That is just self dealing Ayn Rand foolishness. An unregulated business environment is like having a sport with no rules. If anything goes on the playing field then expect the must unscrupulous to win. Facebook shows us once again to expect the worst with unchecked power and no regulations.
2
Congressional hearings will only work if you bypass Schumer.
Sen. Do nothing Chuck, shut down Sen. Warner's questions and attack against FB last hearing.
It also just happens that Schumer is the most heavily paid Sen. from FB and other tech co. Schumer's daughter is also a marketing manager in NY for FB.
Hearings and some reg. are a good and necessary thing. Once Schumer is dismissed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-schumer-facebook-mark-warner-2018-11
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
3
Sandberg and Zuckerman live in an altered reality— shrucking off Russian vote tampering as though it was a rained out picnic. They remain untouchable, and don’t seem to understand that they gone from hailed to assailed.
Dear EB: you bemoan the lack of "corporate responsibility and civic duty", "accountability and oversight", without any recognition that Facebook has no obligations to meet any of your expectations for those factors; its only obligation is to create obscene wealth for Mark, Sheryl,their stockholders and their political stooges like Chuck Schumer.
2
Here's a reminder - no large corporation of any kind can be counted on to regulate itself. No industry, no group of competitors or monopolies, can regulate itself. No part of the financial, insurance, medical, pharmaceutical, Wall Street, banking, technology, media, or other corporate landscape can regulate itself.
In another article in the NYT's today, commenting on the newest revelations that Facebook is, like almost all other corporations, especially technology companies, "crooks", a Facebook advertiser said: "we now know Facebook will do what ever it takes to make money, and they have no morals".
Yep. That's why you need regulation, and enforcement.
3
Just like the Republicans where they expect the fox to be guarding the hen house
2
Russian trolls hacking the election? Facebook decides to “Lean In”.
3
This is the Golden Age for those who traffic in conspiracy theories, and it seems obvious that social media and Faux News/Breitbart/Drudge/Daily Caller are responsible. The Russians (and Donald Trump!) were very smart in recognizing how to use social media so effectively to circulate these fact-free stories. The challenge is to find a Constitutional approach to regulating social media without violating the First Amendment. Passing such a law that would survive a Supreme Court challenge seems highly unlikely.
1
It is time for a general re-regulation of the new monopolies that have become essentially "public utilities."
As we have seen through historical cycles, the market is too destructive of humans, as its acolytes pretend that sociopathy can be applied to land (environment), labor (people), and capital (which becomes too erratic and ultimately overpowers society).
Regulation stabilizes markets and technologies to serve human ends (reasonable "economic inefficiencies" that are "socially efficient").
In the past, eventually, the nannies and the privileging of political labor over economic labor leads to sclerosis, and when a new technology emerges amidst reaction to the apparently "inevitable" growth of inefficient and over-bureaucratized regulation, then a period of disruption occurs (creative destruction, as Schumpeter put it) in which paeans are sung to the politically-created "free" market.
This disruption leads not to socialism, but to a public assertion of regulatory control over private corporations.
The time is upon us for re-regulation of monopolies.
(For the left's hostility to social democracy, please revisit the Marxists' frothing attacks from the mid-20th century; but I remain convinced that the New Deal State is as good as it gets, and it prevents fascism.)
Don't break up these behemoths. Regulate them. Return capital to "reasonable rates of return." Stabilize economic life while we rebuild a social life worth living for great mass of citizens.
1
Facebook's business model is not just an "ecosystem ripe for manipulation [by others]," it is itself all manipulation.
Who needs algorithms that create junky products by focusing on closed-loop thinking instead of having producers that actually think through and design quality products? Or that promote fake friends and fake social interaction? We now have an economy that not only sells the sizzle, not the steak - it sells only the sizzle, nutrition disappeared. I don't believe this is what consumers want. This is what private equity investors, with their winner-take-all risk models want.
If we want Facebook, it should be nationalized and free of commercial interests, like the United States Postal Service. Moreover, Google should be a public utility, and we should have absolute net neutrality.
1
This is political drama. If Facebook broke any laws, then the FBI should investigate and bring charges. If Facebook did not break laws, then perhaps Congress needs to regulate the entire social media industry which means getting all of them in for hearings: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, and now apparently Gab.
Facebook is the fifth column aiding the nations' enemies within. The vast unreported misdeeds of Facebook needs to be investigated by an independent special counsel. Else Facebook will dangle large re-election Congressional campaign funds to blunt the effect of any (Congressional) inquiry.
1
The editorial closes with: “a sense of urgency is growing around the idea Facebook should be regulated”
This “sense of urgency” surrounding "regulation" is a creation of the NYTimes and others in the mainstream media…who clearly consider Facebook (and alternative media in general) to be a major threat to their decades-old media dominance.
It is absurd to think that grown adults in the United States of America need to be “protected” from what they may see on Facebook…or any other form of media.
It is well past time for adults to act like adults. We are witnessing an agenda of censorship…under the guise of “regulation” and "protection". The NYTimes, and their cohorts in mainstream media, simply want to be the only purveyors of information.
Every American adult should oppose this agenda.
1
NO company can be trusted to regulate itself.
1
Face book needs to be regulated the same way banks and corporations need to be regulated. It was amazing to learn how greed had taken over Zuckerbergs and Sandbergs better judgement.Greed seems to be a narcotic that few are immune to; when the money rolls in, the integrity gets squeezed out. I would think they would be satisfied with their social media world domination. How much is too much.
2
Facebook needs to pay for every customers data with a deposit into FDIC and when it breaks the security or sells the data, put more towards the SS & Medicare fund.
This is far bigger than Facebook. No huge organization is capable of regulating itself nor, can government regulate them. This should not be a stunning news. The whole idea of a capitalistic economy is the idea of competition. The massive success of capitalism is based on the natural conflict between market competition and human greed.
With no competition, greed wins. Facebook has put growth and power above everything else, ethics and legality have taken second position, and sheer financial power lets them get away with it.
Sanders and Zuckerberg are utterly corrupt. Their greed MUST be balanced against competition from other similar companies. Government's role, and only role, should be to assure that no entity gets too big using anti-trust legislation.
The idea that government should slip its grafty, greedy fingers into control of companies is nonsense. Particularly in the present Citizen's United world, companies have paid off politicians to look the other way, they are incapable of regulating companies or investigating their operations. It becomes a political dance and not one that fosters healthy competition.
We should have learned from Microsoft who destroyed the market for office software. (There is a consensus among high end office users; low end users know nothing else.) Microsoft should have been limited to either: computers, operating systems, office software, or browsers not all of them. And the mediocrity still shows in its software. Greed won!
1
"Facebook...demonstrated a staggering lack of corporate responsibility and civic duty in the wake of this crisis."
This view is naive. Tech companies are corporations. Corporations have one goal, to make money for their shareholders. Any corporate act of social responsibility or conscience is tied to making more money for their shareholders -"Oh look how nice Facebook is now, I am not going to close my account." The argument against corporate personhood is corporations, unlike most humans, save psychopaths, have no conscience beyond acting in their best interests.
Thanks to Minority "Leader" Chuck Schumer, the Democratic side of the U.S. Senate won't be looking too hard. Someone ought to look more closely into the corruption caused by campaign contributions and the employment of relatives.
I am a charter member of the FVA, Facebook Virgins of America. We are a small group and have no dues or meetings. The only qualification you need is that you always said no to Facebook. Join me on Snapchat now. If you believe that, you're probably on Facebook.
1
Permit me to repeat two suggestions made in my comment on Michelle Goldberg's essay on coping with the Facebook Threat.
May I suggest a NATIONAL WEEK OF FACEBOOK ABSTINENCE, to punish them for using a scurvy PR firm to spread a white nationalist anti-Semitic trope (George Soros is responsible for all bad things, among them, criticism of FaceBook). No amount of Ms. Sandberg's greenwashing should obscure FaceBook's culpability.
Remember, Facebook covered up a substantial element of Russian interference in our elections, reportedly even from its own board. Democrats, Senator Schumer among them, should renounce political contributions from FaceBook's world.
1
One more time, I have to state clearly that if you get your news from Facebook you deserve what you get. It is a place where many keep in contact with friends and family around the world. That is its purpose.
You want news, go to a newspaper, a magazine, a television or radio news source. Even a blog will give one more "hard news" than Facebook. The use of FB for extolling political views as news has been the downfall of friendships (a friend of mine for over 20 years no longer speaks to me because of my political views) and family relationships.
I am not a fan of FB, but blaming Mark Zuckerberg for the fact that morons listened to bogus Russian plants and voted based on that is ludicrous. I taught my students, before the recent elections, that it is their responsibility as citizens to vote intelligently by researching the candidates and the Propositions carefully. I encourage all voters to do the same.
1
Any regulation placed upon Facebook will not be Facebook specific. It will affect all digital media companies. The NYT takes my information when I signed up for its digital service. Should the NYT be regulated in how it uses that information? In addition, just like the NYT, there are significant first amendment issues if the legislation will require Facebook to monitor posts or remove posts. Will that same legislation require the NYT or WAPO to remove comments on its articles, just like this commentary piece?
Finally, regulation usually helps the behomoths and squashes the little guy. Facebook can afford to comply, a new competitor cannot afford the compliance expenses. New regulation will cement Facebook's position in the Social Media world.
At least I no longer receive chain emails with disinformation...people just post that sort of thing on Facebook.
"Facebook is unable to regulate itself". maybe users need to stop being so lazy as to believe everything they see on line and go back to a few simple adages taught to us by our parents--"don't believe everything you read". "don't judge a book (facebook) by its cover". "take everything with a grain of salt". we've gotten so lazy and so dumb as a result of our information being spoon fed to us online that we stare at it, open mouthed, drool hanging off, and think, it's on the internet so it must be true.
#wakeupamerica
Wrong!! Let them publish whatever they want. We'll decide what's fake, etc just like we do with you.
1
The Times damages its credibility by continuing to offer a link to Facebook for sharing their content -- as one can see immediately below the byline of this very editorial --
The Times is caught between a rock and a hard place - because even as its editorial side publishes these damning exposes about the dark side of Facebook - the business side is well aware of the vast number of readers -- who are attractive to advertisers - who still continuously interact on Facebook - and they cannot afford to lose them --
Imagine if the Times published a series of articles in the Health Section about the extreme dangers of smoking tobacco - and followed it up with an editorial titled "Tobacco Companies Cannot be Trusted to Regulate Themselves" --
Now imagine - at the same time - an article in the Styles Section about the latest hip and trendy smoker's lounge - where cigar aficionados can enjoy cigars from around the world, while sipping brandy and exchanging tobacco gossip --
When the Times is really ready to take a stand on this issue - they will take the step of leadership and remove the Facebook link from their stories.
If people really want to share a Times article on Facebook - they surely know how to do it without the Times providing an easy-access gateway to this platform - who's purpose becomes darker and more suspect every day...
You do have a simple choice...turn it off. After deleting the app a year ago haven't missed it for a second. It's like being mad at yourself. Press delete.
1
2 years and it is hard to see what facebook has done. Their platform was and continues to be used by hostile governments and trolls to attack the united states.
FB has hired (fake) PR firms, now has staff to manually review billions of web pages, and has taken down some russian sites and some right wing ones. But they do not data mine to find the trolls - relying on manual look/see - and do not mark even obvious fake stories as such. They certainly do not verify and seem to not feel any responsibility about what is posted on their platform - free speech is used as a cover and as the article stats, they will do nothing.
Facebook should be regulated or at least threatened with regulation. They will not do it themselves unless they are actively investigated as a force hostile to the united states of america - ill bet money if that happened, we would see a solution to the problem... They have tons of money and smart folks - they appear to need to be forced to be honest brokers.
stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't Facebook and other American Internet giants, such as Google, regulated abroad, as in the EU? and don't they adapt to onerous regulations China? surely, there must be some model, someplace to start, when considering their regulation here at home. we don't always have to reinvent the wheel.
I was there on Facebook during 2016 and I know what I saw. My feed was full of misinformation against Ms Clinton and the Democrats. I attempted to have even conversations with my conservative friends only to have more and more misleading and dishonest links and meme’s show up in my feed. Then friends of friends, people I’d never met doubled down and I have to say it became surreal and overwhelming, and I just *knew*at the time that something very bad was happening. I deactivated the account then and deleted it after the Cambridge Analytica expose.
1
Isn't it a crime to abet a foreign government's intrusion into American elections? Isn't that the (until recently secret) charge against Assange?
They knew and let it happen.
1
Zuckerberg has skated along in his hoodie, portraying an adolescent who has good intentions, but can't be responsible for his actions. No.
He is an adult.
I am glad I never signed up for an account.
1
Are you actually trying to convince me large corporations have no social awareness or moral compass and they are all about profit?
Who knew?!
3
The business model of Facebook is based on manipulation, just like most other advertisement agencies. Share your personal preferences with the world, today aka the Internet, and a lot of people in the world will gladly return the favor as long as they can make a profit. Who would have thought of that.
good question.
answer: the basic model comes from mass catalog marketers like Sears and Ward, starting in the 19th Century with the advent of nationwide railroad deliveries... and a lot of postwar sources with the introduction of zip codes af computer data processing... but the whole stew was originally brought together for political purposes by Richard Vigurie, a brilliant if misguided conservative fundraiser who recognized before most how to use the tools available for the ends desired.
following the thread would make a good story for the Times, as it leads through Roger and Anne Stone, Paul Manafort, and Charlie Black and also has tendrils into various Nazi organizations and mass fundamentalist Protestant fundraisig (bilking) campaigns which piggybacked into support for rightwing politicians, including Trump, all, beginning long before the rise of the Internet.
1
What does it say about our nation that more than half us get our news primarily from Facebook?
How often have you gone out to a restaurant and seen numerous couples and families staring at their "smart" phones oblivious to one another or their surroundings?
As the so-called father of public relations, Edward Bernays, wrote almost a century ago, the group mind is easily controlled and therefore manipulated for profit.
To quote:
"In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
#dumpfacebook
1
We all knew Zuckerberg is a child and Sandberg was supposed to be the adult in the room. Kinda like the Oval Office, turns out the toddler is running the show and the adults have capitulated.
1
"Facebook can't be trusted to regulate itself."
Yes, neither can banks and financial institutions (especially when playing with other people's money), companies that pollute the environment, for-profit universities, Wall Street, Fox news and right-wing media, Donald J. Trump, Mitch McConnell, the GOP.... and so it goes in our utopian capitalist society.
How much evidence do we need that too many of the people in positions of power in our country are greedy, self-serving, and shameless, especially when it comes to money, and they will fight long and hard to make sure that regulations and oversight are nonexistent or extremely weak.
There is money to be made; there are investors to please; there is power to wield.
Conservatives call it "free-market capitalism" in honor of Adam Smith. Only they leave out the part that Smith qualified that free-market capitalism only works if the parties involved behave responsibly.
So either Zuckerberg and the rest of them will have to turn their eye from profit and market share to responsibility, honesty, fairness, and safety, or the government will have to do it for them with pesky regulations and oversight.
Do they get it--yet?
3
of the miscreants on your, list, I believe only Fox News is even lightly regulated, and it doesn't seem to have slowed them down much.
I quit Facebook in 2014. Everything that has happened since then tells me I made the right decision at the right time. Anyway, Zuckerberg is a straight-up thief and conman, and who wants to give support to a person like that?
I find it interesting that Mark Zuckerberg's expression on his face is now often similar to that of Jared Kushner's. My best instinct, after 57 years on the planet, is that it is the face of liars no matter what your latest social media narratives say. "Move fast and break things" is ok for kids in arcade, but this does not bode well in the world of adults.
No organization, particularly one of this size and power, can be trusted to self-regulate.
1
In other words the Times and other mainstream outlets will fight to remain the gatekeepers of public discourse. If they can't succeed in the free market they'll use their influence to get favorable regulations. Just like any other big business. It will only stifle free speach a little. The people on Facebook are too dumb to be allowed unfettered speach anyway.
I find it puzzling all the posts calling Facebook a monopoly. A monopoly of what? Facebook?
Facebook has fierce competition. The market that Facebook competes in is not about scrolling through endless posts from your friends and acquaintances.
Facebook competes with all the other things that you do with your free time: watching video on {tv, Netflix, Hulu, YouTube}, reading a book, surfing other websites, exercising, engaging in hobbies, etc.
The limited list of truly useful things that you can do on Facebook can be done elsewhere, but mostly Facebook is after the time you spend dorking around looking at mindless posts or submitting crazy rants about George Soros or the Koch Brothers.
Similarly, I've heard people say that the NFL has a monopoly on football. That's like saying that McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac. Joe Rogan has a monopoly on the Joe Rogan Show. The New York Times has a monopoly on the New York Times.
Try to see the forest, not just the trees.
1
I think Facebook and “tech” et al deride the current form of government oversight. It is antiquated, which tech feels they are not. It is inherently isolationist based, which tech abhors. It’s like a grandparent berating a child because of things that happened during the depression. Our government can’t regulate internet companies. It’s stupid and I agree will Facebook. Because Facebook is the face of the new America.
More delusional thinking from liberals who still need someone to blame for the loss of the 2016 election. Blame Putin, blame Assange, blame Facebook - blame anybody except themselves and their hapless mouthpiece Hillary Clinton, not to mention her clueless enabler, Barack Obama.
Business can never regulate itself. We don’t let anyone else police themselves, because it is a stupid idea. We have the police for a reason.
We need laws and law enforcement, because not everyone is good. Why assume they would all be good on the internet?
1
Both Sandberg and Zuckerberg should be locked up! For destroying with most sacred right! The right to privacy! Come to think of it you can include Bezos, Brin, and Page! Beats that other Lock Her Up chant, which is mild to these billionaire actions! Do No Harm?! Give me a break!!!
1
Those few Luddites like me out there who are horrified by Mr. Z's Frankenstein's monster & never bought their line, did not sign up (authenticity? what does that even mean? think about it. Lean in? Huh?) have always wondered about the people who did, nearly everyone as it turns out. What did you expect? Turn this junk off.
1
Watch Sheryl Sandberg’s interview on PBS:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/sheryl-sandberg-facebook-made-big-mistakes-on-protecting-user-data
“People who should not have scraped that data and made a directory of it...”
“We shut down this use case...”
“We have shut down many other use cases, in groups and events and pages and search”
Thank goodness! Er . . . what is scraping data and use case . . .?
What an appalling, condescending, and obfuscating explanation and feigned apology. Remarkable that Judy Woodruff didn’t ask Sandberg to translate her terms for the 1.990 billion Facebook users not in the tech industry.
Foolish to use social media for personal purposes. Email and text are risky enough.
1
Scary and sad that a simple open forum for people to share ideas and photos needs to be regulated because there are too many stupid people who can’t tell the difference between truth and fiction.
Oh the irony! A alleged bastion of free speech argues that speech on Facebook should be regulated. As they say, liberalism is a brain disease.
Don't tell that the Chuck Schumer apparently. The Democrats are supposed to be protecting us from the hyper deregulating Republicans. Schumer is supposed to be the lead dog on all of this, but Zuckerberg bought him off easily.
I don't like the idea of regulating companies like Facebook and Google, but we see what happens when they are not regulated. The screw everybody and lie about it.
Regulate all of them. It is the lesser of evils.
Climate change notwithstanding, patriots are becoming an endangered species here .
Sandburg and Zuckerberg couldn’t quite feel the pull of loyalty to country and called the FBI. They properly surmised that that it would cost them money one way or another. That shouldn’t have stopped them from doing the right thing.
Not when it’s the Russians tweaking our elections and polarizing our people.
4
I use Facebook regularly, but it is increasingly less appealing to me as I am regularly bombarded with ads (that have obviously been prompted by my previous Internet searches) out of proportion to the posts of family and friends. The U.S. needs its own version of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R.). Government oversight of Facebook is long over due.
5
Too little, too late. I don't understand how anyone can trust this company anymore... as soon as the Cambridge scandal was made public they should have been subjected to much, much more federal scrutiny.
4
In May of 2018 the General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R) became law in Europe. the regulations restrict what types of personal data the tech companies can collect, store and use across the 28-member European Union.
The U.S. needs such legislation. Our Democracy is threatened by Facebook, and maybe other giant tech companies. We cannot keep looking the other way. The days of the unregulated wild, wild west are over. Perhaps we, also, can design a fair law that will protect the consumer and provide regulation that will not choke the tech companies. There might well be unintended consequences of overly strict laws.
7
The terminology "regulate itself" is too vague and using that terminology can have adverse effects. Campaign funding laws regarding foreign money may have been violated. If laws are violated that is a crime. "Criminally investigate" is the right term.
"Regulate" begins to sound like Facebook should be legally obliged to show/deny certain otherwise legal content. That's overstepping the first amendment and its a slippery slope. Already this year the court of public opinion has influenced many platforms to deny injurious speech and divisive lies. That's working as it should - popular platforms want to be seen as responsible to save their bottom line.
So by all means keep up the public pressure, and call a crime a crime, but avoid drifting over the line and abusing the first amendment.
3
We have become a society in which not only are the ultra-wealthy "above the law," but the law itself has become untethered from any reasonable notion of justice. We need laws that strive for fairness and proportionality rather than nonsensical cookie-cutter formulae. The idea may be termed "Valjean principle."
When an infraction is nonviolent, done in desperation, relatively "victimless" and committed on a humane motive (e.g., Valjean, a loaf of bread, a starving child), punishment should reflect these factors. On the other end of the spectrum are heinous violence and wanton cruelty, and economic crimes committed from perches of enormous wealth.
As to the latter two categories, we are "good" at punishing the first, but abysmal on the second (typically fraud and corporate crimes). In an exact mirror-reverse of the "Valjean" scenario, the richer you are and worse your impact, the milder your punishment, which never stings.
A simple formula would be: If you commit a significant crime despite your wealth (no mitigating hardship or desperation), 1 year in jail for each million you have. Then negotiations from there on a settlement combining jail time and "paying the debt" in cash, to the point penalties sting as much as for poorer criminals. The economy and society's fairness level would soar compared to what we have now.
8
As may or may not be obvious, my suggestion attempts to address the interconnected problems of non-accountability among the ultra-wealthy, the de facto immunity they enjoy, & the grotesque concentration itself of (largely unearned, by any reasonable theory of earning or "merit" that doesn't boil down to literally making a religion of Adam Smith reconstituted, refracted, by Darwin-- a religion -called 'neoclassical economics'- faithful to neither author's actual perspective/insights) wealth that is dangerous, destructive, altogether inimical to democracy & the rule of law.
As I said in a post yesterday, "If you want account balances that reach into the heavens, live like an angel or give up your fortune."
We must change incentive dynamics to say the standard you're held to will reflect your wealth, thereby rewarding humility & modesty rather than arrogance & greed (cardinal virtues in the aforementioned religion) as we do now.
This approach is one step toward satisfying T. Picketty's challenge concerning "Capital in the 21st Century," when we lack the political will and imaginiation to reverse a process of concentration that should never have been permitted in the first place, & only occurred because certain economists hoodwinked so many with their snake oil religion they themselves (Richard Thaler, e.g.) are now disavowing.
This "Valjean principle" is a small step, but formally, explicitly implementing it is the only way legally & culturally to start fixing the problem.
2
Indeed, the strength of the aforementioned religion's hold on folks can be tested by altering the proposal to give any such criminal a "grace"/exemption on $5 or $10 million (perhaps even $25 million!), only applying penalties to wealth beyond that amount, and determining support for the idea.
If our community can watch practices fundamentally undercutting our political system, rule of law, and democratic principles, and consider it too draconian to expect anyone guilty of that behavior to surrender their fortunes (or even a substantial percentage thereof) exceeding these suggested thresholds, then our society has repudiated any sense of fairness and justice and given over its soul to the golden calf. After all, poorer criminals' lives are destroyed for far less, ROUTINELY, and we consider it cruel or excessive to expect a (duly convicted) executive to live on 5, 10, or 25 million dollars. If that is indeed the case, America is beyond hope and deserves to be buried with its golden idol. However, I ardently hope (against the overwhelming evidence) that is NOT the case.
1
There is a simple solution to the underlying problem, the “original sin” of the ad-based business model. Facebook (and other platforms) can reduce abuse and regain trust by realigning value creation and value capture to better serve users.
There is no consensus on how to regulate because the problem is complex, beyond the fundamental mis-alignment of the ad model. Thus the simplest and most direct solution is to reverse that model. Mandate change in a market-based way (much as with vehicle emission standards). Shifting suddenly to user-based revenue would be difficult, but mandates could be staged, requiring that X% of revenue be user-based by some date. X can start small, then increase. As X increases, incentives for enabling ad-related abuse would be reduced. Let Facebook determine how best to do that.
If pushed, Facebook will find ways better that we can yet imagine. That will reduce need for unwieldy regulation, simplifying what other regulation may still be needed. There are emerging ways to shift to reader revenue with customized pricing that is workable and fair for each user (my recent journal article and blog posts point the way).
1
So let's get this straight, FB's entire business model is to analyze what people are doing on THEIR platform and to connect that activity with advertisers to maximize profit? But scores of political advertisements for OUR elections originate in Russia, are paid for with Russian currency and FB is totally clueless? Hmmmmmm. Looks like someone was focused a little more on profit than social responsibility. Much to this dismay of the people, the Republicans could only dig just so deep into FB before the Trump/Russia connection was brought to the fore... and so they backed off. Can't wait to see that dynamic come to a Democratic end.
7
@Lie Cheat'n Steal Good, and in a halfway decent world, someone would now be tracing the folks who relayed those Russian postings and inform the people who did exactly what they did. That, of course, might well include some of my relatives and friends.
Congressional hearings rarely find actual answers. There should be an investigation, yes, but not by a bunch of posturing peacocks trying to score political points with their base.
2
Stories like this are nothing more than sideshows from the real story, which is that Hillary Clinton lost the election because Donald Trump simply bested her. A careerist in the political life of Washington, she is seen by many as inauthentic, probing every syllable of her rhetoric with focus-group scrutiny, since giving voice to her id ("basket of deplorables," "they all look alike") gets her in hot water. She is also seen by many on both the left (corporate Democrat too cozy with Wall Street who cheated Bernie Sanders in the primaries) and the right (public server, missing emails, Clinton Foundation alleged promised political favors for donors) as corrupt. Blaming Russian skulduggery of our elections via Facebook is simply grasping at straws, and seen by many, including me, as a way to delegitimize this presidency and the electoral process as a whole, which strikes at the bedrock of our republic.
10
@Xyce I am always confused why these two arguments are conflated. The Russians did plant propaganda on Facebook, that is proven by our own intelligence agencies. However, no one was required to believe the propaganda and vote for Trump. Trump won.
That being said, no foreign government should be allowed to create advertising for any candidate in our elections. Maybe next cycle the EU or China will create ads for Sherrod Brown. Still unfair and against the law.
5
@Ann
I agree with you that outside governments should not be interfering with our elections. It does muddy the waters. That said, foreign government meddling in our elections is a fact of life. They do it to us. We do it to them. Countries attacking other countries have been happening since time immemorial; it is not something that started in 2016, which I think many are pretending is the case.
1
What article are you commenting on? Or are you just rehashing old Republican talking points?
Preserving, or perhaps more accurately re-establishing, the sanctity of our democratic elections cannot be left to "free market forces".
Government resting on the profit motive will never "clean up" anything - quite the opposite!
7
I quit Facebook a couple years ago. I got suspicious of my ad content shifting to reflect my current online activities and geographical location. I also got tired of "friends" I did not know being fed and receiving posts and links.
12
No one needs Facebook. To continue to patronize them is just as wrong as their use of their platform to manipulate people and our political process. They are not without their own need for specific political agendas. That is why they stay so loyal to the GOP, just like every other corporation.
I can't tell what is worse the gullibility and self punishment of the people or the greed and cruelty of the ruling corporations.
25
@Chris
Just as no one “needs”, advertising?
We need to have something like the Fairness Doctrine, so that no matter the platform the difference between facts and opinions are clear.
The whole social media world smacks of 1984/ big brother.The corporate big players think they have the divine right from their cryptic user agreements to collect every piece of personal data, communications, and likely thought at some future point, in pursuit of growing their corporate profits and increasing their size. How about some anti-monopoly enforcement, combined with EU privacy policies to pursue a policy that anything we wouldn't want the government to know about us, is off limits for these companies. If we don't clip the wings of these companies now, wait until they cross market with wireless carriers and call centers they have agreements with. I can see a day where you get flagged to have valium adds sent to you because you called into a call center and the voice recognition classifier in their prompts have sampled your voice and determined you are feeling stress. Don't think those sort of applications exist, they are already being used to route some companies most valued customers to a special group of agents if their voice sample indicated stress. They probably spin this as improving customer service, but combined with social media,big brother is looking for any chink in your personal armor to categorize you and use their self-conveyed right to pitch their wares to you at any time that is convenient for them, whether you want that or not.
11
@Kevin
Your personal data is only off limits if you don’t reveal it.
I don't know of any business that can be trusted to regulate itself.
27
@Lester Jackson
You are right Lester! Very rare. We tried it with organic farmers, who one would think would be hip, but they used all the water and converted wetlands too.
The "honor system" is dead and gone. We've entered the Realm of Eternal Greed.
Do we trust the government that is deregulating every other big business to regulate Facebook ...
If not, who do we trust .... this is very scary ...
7
Would one suppose that a Nancy Pelosi type, or any person on record as being all about her donation power, ever bring to debate breaking up this vast monopoly and thus stepping on the toes of it's cadre of rich execs worth thousands of $$ each in contributions? Call me cynical, I doubt it.
1
Following the congressional hearing/s must be a congressional investigation.
6
The extraordinary arrogance of Facebook is rivaled only by that of the white Nationalist who “won” the presidential election.
You don’t have to be a numbers expert to know that Trump would not be president if were not for the insidious voter manipulation by Facebook in general and Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandburg in particular.
10
Facebook is a soulless growth industry. Its poster child is a sociopathic robot who can barely muster a hint of emotion or humility. Did we expect any less?
22
I think we all suspected that Zuckerberg was an immature twerp who was also a computer genius.
But Sandberg of Lean In, Plan B, fame comes as a particular disappointment. She is Exhibit A for all those who argue if only women were in charge, things would be different. Maybe not.
23
@Sparky
Immature twerp yes. Computer genius? Maybe. More likely is the possibility of emerging from a privileged background to become vastly over-privileged and hyper egotistical—all on the foundation of a “product” that has diminished humanity.
1
@Sparky You realize this argument could be very easily turned around on men, as men are still the majority in American boardrooms and executive suites. Using your logic, men are the least desirable gender for corporate governance given how many financial and social disasters have occurred on their watch.
1
Most people employ the Internet not to seek the best information, rather to select information that confirms to their prejudices. Given this demand, its natural that peddlers of conspiracy theories and fake news step in to supply whatever misinformation satisfies the consumer. Facebook cant fix this problem, its innate to humanity!
... None of us are as dumb as all of us.
2
Now its Putin and Zuckerburg who stole the election for Trump. No actual evidence exits how this activity might have won the election for Trump. But granted Facebook became a nasty place full of shameful hatred and racism that has now become a huge issue since the election. This is the market place. Come one come all. Zuckerburg wanted everybody in the world to sign up.
2
The Times should equally emphasize the danger of government regulation of news and opinion reporting and sharing. Russian trolls took advantage of sociological fault lines that already were present in our society and they used slick social media techniques to magnify them, further widening divisions within our society. Sometimes their efforts were fake, such as creating competing protests in the streets, or false news stories, at other times they just piggybacked their efforts onto real news or opinions. Examining how this happened is valuable and a legitimate activity of government. Our citizens need to be aware of how they are being manipulated. Regulating such a thing is something else. There is enough overlap between what Russians promote and what Americans really believe that our rights for free expression are jeopardized. Banning information based on its content (unless that content breaks the law), is extremely dangerous. With worldwide participation in social media exchanges of information, banning content based on its source is also a dangerous move. We have been through a period of our history when being associated with Russia was damning to any opinion or person who expressed that opinion. In our zeal to protect ourselves we need to be equally vigilant that we don't lose our freedom to express ourselves publicly.
38
@Casey Dorman
We used to teach people, children, how to think. That no longer happens.Thus proper perception is much more difficult than it need be.
One of the main things knowing how to think teaches you is that Free Speech does not mean "say whatever you want to say". The problems you point out make that very clear as does the history of court rulings about public speech.
The problem today is an irrational and foreign interpretation of what Free Speech is and a lack of personal boundaries knowing how to think would inform a person who doesn't even know that term to respect.
12
@Casey Dorman
We need to promote critical thinking skills in schools.
Never before has a child been born into a society with so much media to sort through, and not all of said media is as authentic as it's being presented as.
Perhaps we can start by teaching how to spot fake watches :) Ok that's a bit out there, but perhaps some online games ! Spot the troll ! Maybe we need some games that take real world media and - like Pokemon for phone - that silly game people play finding those silly digital pokemons ? Maybe we need some 'games' that let people try and find the 'planted' troll posts.
Even playing just once would be an eye opener as to how much other media is out there liquid -as in digital that may have been automated in it's origin.
Facebook invites it on one level, I once worked at a company and I heard the CEO had paid some group of Indians to create 50,000 likes on their Facebook page. I 'guess' the idea is - create the appearance of consensus validation/likes and people will just say 'Okay, they must be legit'.
I think that was the idea in the 2016 election, enough phony comments - and people will just say - ok, everyone else thinks Hillary is satan - I guesssssss they must be right, etc.
I don't think it's fake news that's the threat - which is why I own fakecomments but - I think it's fake comments ON news sites that do the damage. I still haven't built fakecomments into what I want, which is a way to help people spot them.
1
@Casey Dorman Facebook can't be trusted to regulate itself but our politicians are willing to do it for us. They can be trusted. Right! People step away from the ledge & come inside. Facebook was obviously duped by Russian trolls. I doubt anyone there expected Trump to win. Perhaps they were misled by the NYT's 2016 model that put HRC chances of victory at 85 percent. Yes? Lesson learned. Truthfully Facebook didn't have a big impact on Trump winning the 2016 election. HRC ran a poor campaign. But for arguments sake lets say it's true. So what. Would these same people complaining now if Facebook had swung the race in Hillary's favor? Absolutely not. We all know that. So lets stop the revolting hypocrisy. Maybe establishment institutions despise the fact that the internet is going to leave them behind, obliterating their influence. Maybe they can't stand the fact the "people" who's will on Earth they purport to represent will need them less & less. When the Pope saw the first press in 1440 he was horrified. He's said to have shouted “This will destroy That. The Book will destroy the Edifice.” It was ecclesiastic terror before a new force: printing. It signified that one great power was to supplant another great power. The Printing-Press would destroy the Church. Yes it it did in some ways. But humanity in the end was better for it. And now the Internet is destroying a different Church. The media establishment. Isn't that the reason for all this hyperbolic hand wringing?
1
Not read it yet but, No Corporation can be trusted to regulate itself with the law being what it is.
Change repeal republican regulations mandating maximization of profits and that may change.
5
Apparently I'm missing something here, because in my view we've given up our privacy all over just about every aspect of our lives, and nobody is protesting or suggesting Congressional hearings about this.
We buy cars that track where and how we drive. We install "smart" devices in our homes that monitor our comings and goings. We confide our innermost thoughts and feelings, and our most intimate activities, to our phones -- which can easily be lost and fall into the wrong hands.
What is it about Facebook that I'm not understanding, that makes them worse than all the other IoT companies we happily patronize?
4
@EveT You’re tracking it, though IoT devices have not democratized publishing (Facebook isn’t a tech company, it’s a publishing company that uses tech to connect with its audience) in ways that are usurping truth and democracy. IoT companies such as Amazon and Google have issues surrounding privacy and security — two words that more often than not are synonymous with one another).
You’re spot on with concerns over IoT and I suspect those issues will play out in the near future, Facebook represents a global community of untrained publishers adjacent to commercial interests trying to exploit (or hack) perception. If ‘attention’ is the new economy, ‘perception’ is clearly its currency. So while newspapers MAY be slowing disappearing, that communications industry CLEARLY understood the value of the publishing/editing relationship.
With Facebook, who edits the world?
Perhaps it is worth evaluating the role of several educational institutions that cultivate and feed these enterprises.
How much blame should we lay at the steps of Stanford, Harvard and others who have failed us.
1
I do not think Facebook is guilty of any evil .
It is just immaturity coupled with incompetence and misguided priorities .
Facebook , as are Google , Twitter and Silicon Valley generally are all NEW companies , lacking in tradition and history . They were founded by young people with no management experience , and suddenly rocketed into fame and wealth . Their employees are all new , arriving from elsewhere in a very short amount of time . Hundreds of thousands of people suddenly assembled together from all over to try and create a business required to function responsibly .
Add to that the impossibility of understanding what the spread of technology can do and reach , and you have a recipe for a mess .
So , yes , 'regulation' is necessary and useful . But what regulation , and in what context ?
Combined with regulation those new companies must also be examined for their management systems and competence .
We should remember they are essentially brilliant creations , and where they stumbled - and what needs correction - pales in comparison to what they created .
1
Agree with you on these people wading deep into thinks beyond their depth rather than setting out to do "evil". Listened to a recent "The Daily", where they bandied the word "callow" around, which I hadn't heard in a while. Looked it up and it's the exact definition of what these people are. But I disagree about the consequences. More and more, I believe that Social Media has done - and does today - more harm than good. Just hope that "the right" regulation can tip the balance.
3
@Truthbetoldalways "Pales"? What they created was the perfect platform for the spreading of lies and bigotry. They "created" the current crisis in our Democracy. I have personally seen memes in which the Obamas are photoshopped to look like apes. I've seen Trump photoshopped to appear that he is "rescuing" a flood vicim from a flimsy boat. They created something that could have been wonderful. I have relationships with "lost" friends and family members that I wouldn't have otherwise. But we'd better get a grip on this or they will "create" more disinformation that will destroy our country.
@Truthbetoldalways, you should really do research before you spew ignorance.
Google's CEO is Sundar Pichai, and he holds multiple degrees including an MBA from Wharton. What have you got to compete with that? If you aren't running a 20-year multi-billion dollar business, your opinion is, as you put it, a mess.
Skilled interference in our election process by a hostile state actor, using large-scale snd targeted covert disinformation (quite aside from willing and undiscerning recipients, combined with any complicit U.S. political party machine) on a primary public media platform is dangerous to the integrity and security of that process. We dare not shrug this off as irrelevant.
By the same turn, however, this should not be turned into a partisan circus at Congressional hearings. What is needed is the continuation of serious research so that the effort to stop this can be undertaken correctly and categorically, including other social media platforms such as Twitter. It's not just a Facebook problem.
6
It is difficult to see Facebook as anything other than a monopoly. A monopoly that exercises overwhelming control over the content of social media. This control gives it undue influence over what people see, hear, and understand to be "news." It has therefore become a danger to our democracy. The remedy seems straightforward. It should be broken up and no part of what was formerly Facebook should be left with more than a small fraction of the social media "market." A knock on benefit is that breaking up Facebook would likely result in a surge of innovation.
14
@AM
I agree. Giving up private information is a personal decision. But there's a limit to tolerating the promotion of genocide, promulgation of hate, and irreparable damage to democratic institutions as the price of free speech.
“Facebook cannot be trusted to regulate itself.”
What a joke. I went to medical school for 4 years, residency for 4 years and fellowship for 3 years. Passed national boards several times over now. And every time I touch a patient, there are so many forms to be completed and checklists to be filled out and places to sign (never mind visit from the state, certifications, etc.), you’d think the government was protecting the patient from an assault. Physicians are regulated up the wazoo!
Why ever made us think these people in Silicon Valley would not need to be regulated?
8
Perhaps it's because a current crop of Americans don't understand software technology they miss the elephant in the room: Facebook has no real competitors in it's business space because it is a coercive monopoly. Why pundits then ignore the pachyderm is unknown but in general our pundits are careerists first. It is that monopoly status that gives Facebook it's leverage to bewilder Congress and the public.
Facebook crushes any possible competition by disallowing integration with potential competitors and it builds that monopoly out insidiously, via the ubiquitous "log on using Facebook" tool. This is corporate red pilling of other businesses, right under out noses. There is no technological or free market basis for this dominance, Facebook does not even do a very good job of providing a service for it's customers notwithstanding problems of security.
Congress needs to grasp software sufficiently to make law declaring data sharing protocols must be OPEN to competition if the owner wishes to share THEIR data with competing home page providers across homepage providers. Competitors, at least some of whom will opt to offer highly ethical versions of the home page for individuals, will provide free market solutions to the Facebook problem. Zuckerberg will spend anything to prevent this, a sure indicator it's a great idea.
7
Please explain under what statute this investigation would operate. And please don't say, "it's the House's prerogative". There are plenty of journalists, screenwriters, movie producers etc. who can tell you what it's like to face that prerogative.
Sauce for the goose, indeed.
1
@Daedalus
"The main statutes (of US antitrust law) are the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914." --wikipedia
Not much of a labyrinth you constructed there Mr.Daedalus
1
@Peter Alexander Elastic law: the best kind.
I challenge the notion that Congress should oversee private enterprises like Facebook.
Our "Free Press" failed to inform us about the abuses, perhaps because they are similarly corrupted in their pursuit of ad revenues. As we eventually become informed, we will reign in the bad actors much more effectively than Congress ever could.
Congressional regulation typically results in a government granted and protected monopoly rather than a market based competition with continuous improvement.
1
Since the Russians are running the elections in America why not let the EU be in charge of our technology oversight.The European regulators seem to be willing to confront the issues which will impact the privacy of the citizens without fear of offending any particular political party or special interest group. Plus, they are way ahead of our political leaders in actually understanding the unique problems posed by technology.
7
We have yet to come to terms with the staggering degree of control the major platforms exercise over political speech and what it means for democracy. The economics of attention online urges us to do so: more and more of our public conversation is unfolding within a dwindling coterie of internet sites that are controlled by a small handful of corporations, largely unregulated and geared primarily to profit rather than public interest...
5
As has been proven thousands of times, here in America, and over history, as Karl Polanyi in his "Great Transformation" notes, and several other leading thinkers have shown over millennia of history --- no 'limited liability', and 'non-transparent' money and power acquiring entity, either; Empires, Dynasties, nor other forms of Dictatorships "Can Regulate Themselves" (as the "Times" asks/asked in it's initial title line of this question about Facebook).
6
Facebook is unnecessary, period. It has created an artificial need for "social" interaction that can be easily fulfilled by almost any other form of interaction - talk to someone in person, phone, text, email or use one of the more secure group messaging systems like Signal. The sooner we abandon Facebook, the better. It is utterly useless, distracting and as we are now seeing, it places money above everything, including national security. Give up Facebook and see how much freer you will feel!
18
@Peace Yes, I agree with you. A Zen Buddhist teacher said, "Your time is your life; don't squander it."
Heeding that advice, I have never been "on" Facebook, which seems like an enormous, intrusive, time/life killing activity.
5
First, break this outfit up. Second, by actions let them know to get in line or the public will do it for them and to them, no doubt to the detriment of user experience and shareholder value.
1
One possible explanation is that Zuckerberg is not quite as smart or clever and one might imagine. Initially stealing the FB idea from a "friend" doesn't merit much intelligence in my thinking but it does point to a lack of integrity. Whatever the level you place this kid in- the rapid success of FB outpaced Z's IQ and easily surpassed any meager amount of legality he possessed . When you don't want to get into trouble but not smart enough to determine how or what - your plan can only be to deny and claim innocence. I'm not saying there isn't any nefarious intent that developed along the way. You can take the kid out of college but you have more difficulty taking the "college immaturity" out of the kid. Zuckerberg needs to lose control of his company- that's the only clear message.
8
"That’s why the incoming House, newly in Democratic hands, should make serious oversight a priority."
If the fact that someone, no matter who, is posting negative things on Facebook is the top priority of the House of Representatives, this country is truly doomed. We have immigration laws badly in need of reform, we have crumbling infrastructures, we have a national debt that is out of control, we have Americans dying in overseas adventurism, and the House needs to monitor Facebook trolls?
Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
3
@mikecody
I'm sure your great nation can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Tell me, is the number of deck chairs on the Titanic used to select your elected representatives? Does the guy with the most chairs get the nuclear codes?
@Peter Alexander First, I am talking about the fact that the authors seem to think that this is the most important issue facing the House at this time, and I question their sense of priorities.
Also, I am equally sure that the great citizens of this nation should be smart enough to distinguish between fact and fiction, and not allow phony posts on social media to affect their votes.
If the resultant congressional hearing is anything like the one on Kavanaugh why bother.
8
Facebook is a reflection of ourselves. Our Id, if you will. The monster that haunts us. The movie Forbidden Planet predicted this.
2
“Facebook cannot be trusted to regulate itself,” - Neither can Google nor Microsoft nor Amazon ... Any regulations need to address the entire industry and its blatant disregard for user privacy in the pursuit of profits.
4
Why do the Times editorial pages cringe from using the apppriate word "disinformation" when describing Wikileaks' dissemination of lies, consistently settling for the weaker and less accurate "misinformation"? It has been well established that the trafficked in spreading false information about the Clinton campaign, not as a matter of "mis"take" but with the deliberate intent of spreading falsehoods to influence. By avoiding the appropriate word, you allow a more benign interpretation of their actions. To quote the editorial, "few people [are] in the position to demand answers"--and I would add that those who are should call a spade a spade when discussing the facts of the case.
3
At what point does the American voter need to look in the mirror, and stop blaming Facebook? If a voter can be led to believe Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop, if a voter can have their vote swayed by a post from a site they've never heard of...this is Facebook's fault for being an ineffective nanny? And it's specifically only Facebook's fault when garbage content comes from outside our borders?
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. That's because the average voter is pretty average, and "pretty average" is less informed and more easily swayed than we think. That's an important thing to keep in mind for the Democratic socialists, who want to give voters control over our economy.
3
The bells should've started going off about Facebook when it was discovered they not only had a notion about the Russian troll farms and even Russian intelligence on their platform, but when Cambridge Analytica, whose founders are none other than Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer, was given access to millions of Facebook's users personal information, which was then used for political purposes.
How Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg could keep a straight face before the hearings, and fail to take more substantive action against an obvious invasion and breach of privacy in favor of corporate gain, is beyond belief.
There's nothing "friendly" about Facebook.
8
FB: The opposite of what the World Wide Web was intended to be.
6
Facebook is acting the opposite of their mission statement, “Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” Their mission is, “Give Russia the power to control communities and tear the world closer apart.”
4
Mark And Sheryl: We're Revoking Your Mensch Cards
5
Was anyone else mildly amused that the last line of the article is "Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram."?
6
Until a wealthy corporate principal goes to jail (sic. Wall Street banksters) , Face Book fines and penalties will merely be a tax write off as a "cost of doing business". Aside from knowingly trafficking in and abetting seditious propaganda sourced by a hostile foreign government intended to destroy our nation's democracy....howabout charging Zuckerberg with 2.27 billion counts of invasion of privacy?
4
Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google are today's robber barons (for you kids: google "robber barons"). They are masters of monopoly whose only goal is to make US. and the World their slaves. Get rid of these albatrosses before they destroy any semblance of society we have left. None of them should have the immense power they do. Our legislators do nothing to stop them because we the people do no demand they do so. We have met the enemy, and it is US. We have become fat and lazy and compliant dweebs, consumer junkies addicted to the quick fix they provide with each use demanding more from us. We give them anything they want because we can not live without them. I am old enough to remember when the Big Four did not exist, and yes, we got along just fine. If we want , we should keep the technology, and nationalize all Four. Make them work for we the people not for the few at the top who own them. Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al. are the J.P. Morgan's of the day. They have too much power. We the people have the right to demand they serve US. not the other way around. Break them all up before it's too late.
DD
Manhattan
3
the only way is to to vote - vote by deleting Facebook - then it will drop to becoming the tabloid National Enquirer equivalent of the world - nobody will trust it and it will die
5
When we use FB to pass B.Day wishes,Congratulate each other on Graduating,having a child or other good fortunes,or sharing something interesting and +ve it remains a valuable tool.But, there r quite some abusers of this valuable modern High Tech tool: It has been seen being used to incite a Youth mob into burning Churches,Modern Farms,etc..In the 16's US election too it has been used in a highly biased way to demonize HRC and the Dems and skew the election process to the other side.Yes FB and some other Execs of High Tech firms may have to stay vigilant and intervene to identify and purge offenders and abusers.But the main line of defense comes from a well informed public that doesn't get easily duped by self promoting pretenders who come armed with malice and ignorance.The more the public became reader or viewer of MSM who do their homework about what they report and invite authoritative experts on issues the harder 4 it being manipulated by those with hidden and evil agendas.In FB and other similar mediums anyone can claim what he or she is not and babble as often as they want but a critical reader won't have time 4 that or knows the silliness and stupidity in the posts.Cleaning the Elec Medium requires a united effort by the public with high level of consciousness,Law makes or Authorities of Democracies or seriously governed Nations.Demonizing MSM or banning a CNN WH correspondent empowers those Who abuse this most important Modern invention that could b a force 4 good.TMD
The NYT is blowing the Facebook/Russia thing out of all reasonable proportions.
1
The problem with FACEBOOK, is the same problem that there is with all the Social Media Sites and that is the Social Morons who belong to them and believe the nonsense that is circulated on those sites. Hopefully they will all go the the way of My Space, one of the early sites. GONE OUT OF BUSINESS. Twitter is the worst because of the way our Social Moron in the oval office and his followers are using it. Disgusting.
2
Face Book Motto: Have evil, see us!
Read how FB was used in Myanmar to foment a genocide. When combined with its use as a platform to undermine our democracy, motivate Brexit, etc, etc, etc, and determine if it is worth using fb to be able to post cat pictures for your "friends" to marvel at.
2
What Facebook is doing seems no different than what Big Tobacco has been doing for years downplaying the harmful effects of smoking its products. It's simply an American tradition, regardless of how new age the subject.
3
You are right editorial board. No social media can be trusted to regulate themselves. No business/corporation can be trusted to regulate themselves.
However, congressional hearings - without action to strongly regulate them - are meaningless wastes of time meant to fool
WE THE PEOPLE into thinking OUR hired/elected officials are doing something to control them. They aren't. They haven't been since Reagan.
That is why we are in the mess we're in now with the International Mafia 0.01% Robber Baron/radical religion crooks controlling OUR United States of America.
Do not waste OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars with do-nothing congressional hearings.
DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT OUR PRIVACY AND OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NOW.
7
No rules and no regulations are religious dogma for republicans, in regards to corporate runaway greed, provided it benefits them as well. But unregulated business ('a la Milton Friedman') is bad for a democracy, and Facebook is but one of the bad actors to take advantage of it's power to convince us to go along. The question is, how to accomplish sensible oversight, and still provide some privacy for it's consumers, while preventing bad actors inserting themselves in the conversation and abusing their power, even distorting the truth, and exercising malevolence to gain control of political and/or economic power?
4
Having the House (or politicians in general) oversee potential future regulation of Facebook and the tech industry is laughable. After watching the Committees interview Zuckerberg earlier this year, it was extremely obvious the politicians have no clue about how “technology “ works. They would need a special commission of technology folks to oversee the oversight of the technology industry.
Facebook has grown too big for its britches. I still think part of the solution is to ban FB “Pages” and “Groups” and to restrict the ability to link webpages to posts as well as ban political and divisive memes. One can wish.
1
Perhaps the central fact about Facebook is that its more than two billion users do not pay to use it. Advertisers foot the bill. I think one solution would be to offer the service in two flavors: Charge users a monthly fee for an ad-free experience — streaming music services already do this — or offer a free version of that includes ads.
It goes without saying that Facebook also needs a privacy policy with real teeth and a crop of new leaders with maturity and insight.
3
@Mark Siegel
Perhaps you should buy Facebook and then implement the changes you so desire.
Name one major industry, where large amounts of money are involved, that is allowed to regulate itself: big oil, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, railroads, major airlines, broadcast television. There are none and self-regulation will not work. We have known better from the start.
It is a given that these social media giants need more intense and thoughtful regulation. It takes no effort to reach these conclusions. It just takes Congress working together to get something--anything--done.
7
Yawn...The esteemed Editorial Board makes its usual gratuitous dig at the Trump administration's Executive Branch while failing to recognize that oversight of Facebook is neither authorized by legislation and unwarranted absent violations of US law.
The appropriate place for oversight hearings is the Congress with the longer view of establishing executive authority for oversight and laws that can be used to hold people like Zuckerberg and Sandberg accountable.
Clearly, the management of Facebook is far more interested in profits than they are in good citizenship. And that focus has led to significant abuses that may have played a role in our elections, (After seeing the types of ads placed by the Russians, it IS somewhat of a stretch that they influenced much, but hey, it's a talking point for the conspiracy theorists, and heaven forfend that we take that right away from them.)
It is a fine thing to opine, too, that oversight needs to be done, but it is quite another to suggest what level of oversight might be appropriate. Even more critical is understanding just what sort of "oversight" might actually be constitutional.
I would suggest at the very least that Congress should pass legislation that makes executives like Zuckerberg and Sandberg criminally liable for NOT reporting significant -- covering up -- issues within their companies, and criminally liable with more than slap-on-the-wrist fines that are picked up by their firms. Jail time would be appropriate.
2
Deny, deny, obfuscate and deny. We'll never get a straight answer from the likes of Zuckerberg and Sandberg. If congress lacks the technical expertise to regulate Facebook it should simply borrow strict privacy laws from our European trading partners. At the very least we can support firm global standards to protect consumer data and develop stronger consumer privacy regulations.
11
I rarely agree with any editorial posts from the Times Board, (life long republican and Trump supporter) However, They are right on target with this piece. It's time that the entire social media world, google, apple, etc. are finally regulated. My only fear is that with the newly elected (Democratic) house and Miss Sandberg's (well) noted ties to the Democratic party that (as usual) nothing will happen. We'll see a huge smoke and pony show with little change. This is typical from both sides of the aisle, to be fair.
8
Facebook: uses Russian fake-news tactics. Uses them on Facebook. Looks the other way while Russians subvert our election using Facebook. And then... blames it on Soros. How is this not a criminal enterprise?
4
MZ may be COB, but the BOD needs to assert it's power to ask MZ to take a 3 year sabbatical while they bring in new leadership with a verifiable track record in data privacy and security.
Could you imagine signing up at Facebook as so many Russian robots do?
And the EULA says "OH by the way - our services are free but we SELL your personal data, any and all of it - and it MAY just end up in the hands of hostile foreign nation, good luck" ?
Facebook would collapse in 24 hours on the markets.
And yet - this is their policy.
ONCE Facebook users realize how BADLY they have been SOLD like digital meat slabs - they'll flee.
Maybe other corporate advertisers on Facebook need to be made aware - YOUR ads were shown side by side with Russian intelligence ads carefully designed to influence the 2016 US Presidential election- are you SURE you WANT to be associated with such an irresponsible corporate venue?
Face it - Facebook popped up overnight - UBS granted an obscene 120 billion IPO - and according to MY watch, Facebook can vanish as QUICKLY as it showed up.
I WILL credit Zuckerberg for his philanthropic efforts, I mean, he's put most of that money back out into pro humanity projects from what I understand.
I don't see a way out of this for Facebook saving itself - this cat is out of the bag... it's only a matter of time before more people are aware of how badly they were exploited by this corporate monster.
3
I find the Times report to be disturbing and troubling. All along I knew Facebook was not a "force of good" as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg has stated, how can you be when you steal the idea of the platform from someone else? What is particularly disturbing has been the pattern of denial, delay and deceit whenever Facebook is faced with a controversy. The pattern always ends with a shallow promise to do better. This brilliant piece of journalism points out the extent of how Facebook has been force of evil as it manipulates public opinion, and worse, creates conspiracy theories using George Soros, who escaped the Holocaust. The latter is particularly galling because both Zuckerberg and Sandberg are Jewish, yet they feed the monster of anti-Semitism to wacko groups who use Soros as the leader of a worldwide Jewish cabal bent on destroying society. The way I see it, Facebook has two choices: to be regulated much in the same way as how the EU does it, or even stronger regulations, or the monopoly must be broken up and sold into smaller pieces. One condition that must be undertaken is that both Zuckerberg and Sandurg must be removed from the company and done so immediately. If these conditions are not met, my hiatus will end with the deletion of my account.
6
I’ve never been on Facebook. Unlike Twitter, for example, you can’t even look at it - unless you’re “on” it. My first encounter with Facebook was people from a certain website where I posted whose email accounts began sending me “invites.” Over and over “invites”! Not sent me to by the senders. But - I presumed - that email address of mine had been “stolen” by Facebook. That turned me off immediately.
At this point, though I’ve still never even SEEN a Facebook page (since I never joined) it seems to me that Facebook’s credibility is shot. Over and over there emerged evidence that people’s privacy had been breached - via Facebook. Now it’s clear how cleverly they’ve used their captive audiences to monetize the “news” they send people, to make money by selling Propaganda Routes. And just watching Zuckerberg and his female accomplice fellow executive testify or make the rounds of media it was clear to both myself and my spouse how cleverly they tried to dissimulation and divert, weave and bob every which way.
I would never join Facebook. And I can understand why so many who did have now felt snookered and left in disgust.
“What Facebook Knew”?
To me the real question is: What didn’t they know???
1
Facebook is an affront. Has been from the start.
1
Most people eat processed garbage sold as food
The President and his cronies lie without remorse
Pharmaceutical companies engage in unethical practices
Factories pollute our environment
People die because they have no health insurance
Facebook seems like an easy target for gullible Americans and politicians who don’t want to tackle real problems.
3
@Daniel B------------------Bravo, Daniel B.
I reported what obviously was a foreign (Russian?) misinformation page over a year ago. Facebook responded that they looked into it, and decided to leave the page. Maybe Cicilline should demand records of how many times people reported pages and how FB responded.
2
How about an I quit button? Why should users have to jump through hoops to quit?
3
I find this all so stupid. Look, their Billionaires, they deserve tax cuts, tax breaks and more adulation because their billionaires. And that's what will happen. Just like the assassination of Khashoggi and Jared's prediction that it'll all blow away in a few news cycles... this will all blow away in a few news cycles.
Yawn...
I applaud this concerted effort against Facebook by The NY Times, but it seems somewhat half-hearted when I glance over and see the omnipresent “f” button at the top of every article. Every company that includes social network buttons is contributing to their ubiquity and power.
Congressional hearings will yield nothing but grandstanding and empty promises. Facebook and other social networks are too big to fix, they must be destroyed, and the only way to do it is to take away their lifeblood, the users.
It would be nice to think that articles like this might spark a boycott by enough major influencers to make a difference, but realistically, they're not going to bite a hand that feeds them. They want to have their cake and post obnoxious pictures of it too.
The Times should lead by example and be the first to reject Facebook by deleting their page on the site and getting rid of those "share" buttons. If you really care, stop contributing to the problem.
The human race managed to survive without social media for a long time. We don't need this garbage.
232
@Gary Taustine
Agreed. I quit using Facebook, but I still wanna share this. How?
5
@Gary Taustine I completely agree. That said, I recommend an ad blocking browser extension. The best ones allow a setting to let some non-invasive ads through (which helps to fund the NY Times) and can block social media trackers such as the Facebook "Like" button.
14
@Brewing Monk
Thanks. I had my ad-blocker set up on Safari for a long time but now Apple switched away from extensions to apps in Safari and it's very buggy. Thanks, Tim Cook. You're no Steve Jobs.
Anyway, I'm not sure blinding myself to reality is an effective way to change it. I avoid electronic dance music at all costs, but somehow, sadly it still exists.
11
The SEC took action against Elon Musk for an impulsive tweet. What Zuckerberg and Sandberg have done is months-long obfuscation and borderline criminal activity. The SEC should remove those two from their corporate posts pending a thorough investigation into the culpability of their actions/inaction and the full extent of the damage to Facebook shareholders and to the general public.
8
Here's a thought. Simply ban any corporation from selling personal information of their customers, employees, and clients. Sure, this would put Facebook out of business, but does anyone really care? Wouldn't that reliable old 'free market' step in to fill the void???
16
Imagine if Facebook’s corporate governance chose to be forthright in recognizing and confronting the ways their platform was exploited in the last election. Time for Facebook to Lean In and lead the way, rather than distract and dissemble. It’s not just our leaders in Washington who fail us...
10
If Zuckerberg and Sandberg say that they didn’t know and the NYT report is “simply untrue,” then they need to be relieved of their duties immediately for incompetence in fulfilling their roles and fiduciary responsibilities to the company. To suggest they they cannot be held responsible is ludicrous in the least sense of the word, because all other employees would have been shown the door and probably facing criminal and civil charges. The board of directors of this company should be seeking legal counsel and looking over their shoulders for personal responsibility as well if they do not take action against these idiots, who now have the temerity to stand before the board, their stockholders, advertisers, and customers and state that just because they say they didn’t know, that they shouldn’t be held accountable for any and all consequences of their own inaction, and their deliberate attempt to hide from their responsibilities that accompany their job:position within the company. The whole premise upon which Facebook was founded had been hijacked long ago by smarter and more sinister individuals directed by corporate entities, and governments. If it’s “too big to regulate with any measure of checks and balances,then our government should it down. No one will die from the demise of Facebook, maybe be out of a job, but housecleaning, although dirty and hard work, is more respectable and at least honest.
8
Ummm, wasn't there already a Congressional hearing, expertly derailed by Sen. Richard Burr at the request of Facebook's lobbyists? Per yesterday's article:
"Facebook lobbyists had already worked the Intelligence Committee hard, asking that lawmakers refrain from questioning Ms. Sandberg about privacy issues, Cambridge Analytica and censorship. The argument was persuasive with Mr. Burr, who was determined to avoid a circuslike atmosphere. A day before the hearing, he issued a stern warning to all committee members to stick to the topic of election interference."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html
3
The witch hunt continues. When our favorite Hillary loses, we will not leave behind even the most liberal companies in the Silicon Valley. We will investigate and find the culprits who made the our beloved Hillary's loss possible.
Liberals, please wait for 2020. It has been 2 years since your bitter loss to a non-politician. You still can't stomach it. Learn to be a nice loser, not a bitter one.
1
@Joseph-------------------Goodness, Joseph, it's perfectly sensible and appropriate not to stomach someone who is trying to poison your country. Learning to be nice to such a person is profoundly unpatriotic, not to mention weak.
Congressional oversight? How so when Chuck Schumer is best pals with Zuckerberg and Sandberg and has a daughter who works at Facebook's office in NYC?
8
Bottom line Facebook sold over 50 million of it's users private data to Cambridge Encyclopedia.
Did they know it would end up in Russia? I'll give Zuckerberg a decent read as a human being to say- no, he would not have.
Did Facebook take measures to make sure of that ? Does Facebook have a legal clause to the people they sell their user data to? maybe "This can not be used by foreign nations of the United States to attempt to interfere with an election" ? That might work. I doubt Facebook in ALL of it's TOP talent - and legal teams - didn't think about that.
But the NEXT New York Times article SHOULD BE - "Is Cambridge Analytica criminally liable for the data they purchased to have ended up with Russian intelligence operatives?"
I keep switching putting that ? inside and outside the quotes, I really need to find out the rule on that.
And WE need to find the RULE OF LAW on whether KellyAnne Conway's so close friends the Mercer's who created Cambridge Analytica and put in Trump's Campaign Manager as Vice President (I was wrong, I said President earlier)... DID the Mercer family KNOWINGLY provide this to Russian intelligence with the purpose of influencing the election using misinforming advertisements?
And I dare say- I think the answer is YES.
It also explains the flat out denial - from Sessions during Senate confirmation 'NO, I did NOT meet with any Russians' ALL the way to Donald Trump Jr's poker tell - that pretty much admitted, this is EXACTLY what they did.
4
Once again, Harvard produces the cream of the crop of corruption,
4
@Revoltingallday
The Ivy is looking awfully moldy to me. I would seriously consider starting my own school rather than playing fool to these sex offender defenders.
1
@Revoltingallday-----------------Nope, it's the University of Pennsylvania that has done that.
I would feel much better about Facebook if George Soros were on their Board.
He understands what Trump's America and Putin's Russia
are about.
22
@A. Stanton
One good outcome of that horrific slaughter of Jewish congregants is that I now understand anyone slandering that man to cover for their own failure is a Nazi as far as I'm concerned.
6
It is only a matter of time before Facebook or some other company will employ the "fake news" defense against scrutiny and regulation, using their technology to amplify their message via trolls and bots. We already have massive propaganda efforts every Halloween through Christmas to buy big beribboned packages by tall thin people wearing red sweaters and dancing and prancing to the sound of sleigh bells.
1
Look to Europe.
5
@Jim Spicuzza
Almost emasculating if Mark actually touches everyone through his perverted connecting mechanism. He makes off with your data, and doesn't even take you out on a date!
Although I am not a facebook member and certainly no techy---watching my family members talk about and work on Facebook---I saw a lot of possibilities for bad things to happen on this kind of platform---not the Russian interference, but, playing fast and loose with facts, leveling insults at fellow citizens, etc ---What astounds me, is that a room filled with the best and the brightest of the tech industry, no one in that room voiced concern over the possible dangers that lurk within this platform? I should add, in an area I do have some expertise in, Ms. Sandberg's handling of this mess was pure amateur hour.
6
Can we please stop the clown show, aka congressional testimony, and take Zuckerberg into custody for lying to Congress in previous testimony? My bet is if Z is behind bars, Facebook will be far more forthcoming with information.
4
Historically, Americans guarded their privacy from governmental infringement through the 4th Amendment. Now it seems the larger threat is the loss of privacy to private companies that most Americans use to communicate in our modern society, e.g., Facebook and Google. Surprising that Congress has done absolutely nothing maybe because the American public is sheepish about the surrender of privacy. Hopefully, the investigation of Facebook's machinations to avoid being treated as a media company will also lead to tackling this creeping (or some say exponential) loss of privacy through technology.
4
Is Facebook to blame for the irresponsible use of its platform by its users? The Russian meddling has become a national topic only after the presidential election, but the fact is that nonsensical content has proliferated on the platform long before it reached the realm of politics. From crazy dietary assumptions to tinfoil hat theories, people have spread false information across all social media platforms, not just Facebook.
I find it a bit childish from those FB employees to think that they have the answer, just as much as I see the call in this op-ed to Congress to regulate something that no one understands (because no one really understands the multiple causes of people's interactions and the root of their choices). It would be like regulating comedy, and we would need a committee of morally enlightened individuals who would tell us what is appropriate to laugh at and what is not.
There are several problems with false information. One of them is not the platform where it is shared, but most people's inability to detect the falsehood. Critical thinking is hard and everyone knows at least one person who takes everything they're told at face value and hits the share button (like the one at the bottom of this article).
2
@L. T. Ferrara The one intelligent comment I've read on the subject. Thanks. Hope the NY Times elevates this comment to the 'Picks'.
People laughed at me when I mocked the idea that Zuckerberg was a “genius” and that Facebook brought democracy to Egypt. I predicted no company was more vulnerable to complete collapse than Facebook. And I’m a nobody.
3
“Facebook cannot be trusted to regulate itself,” tweeted Rhode Island Representative David Cicilline on Wednesday night.
More precisely it is Mr. Zuckerburg and Ms. Sandburg that cannot regulate themselves or Facebook. They cannot fathom what they have wrought. Neither of them take personal responsibility for the insidious takeover and mis-use of Facebook by foreign adversaries of the United States and others who post false, misleading and generally untrue advertising and political propaganda.
Zuckerburg and Sandburg conducted an "apology tour" wrongly believing that would be enough to satisfy investors, advertisers, Facebook users, and government investigators. It is not enough and it is not the right thing to do. An apology tour does not fix what is morally wrong at Facebook.
What must happen now and happen very quickly is Mr. Zuckerburg and Ms. Sandburg must either resign from their positions at Facebook or be removed. Also, government regulation and oversight must, absolutely must be imposed immediately as well.
To date there has been no accountability at Facebook. There is also no sense of urgency at Facebook to take action that would restore faith and security at the media giant.
What is at great risk is the integrity of our American political institutions that are at risk of corruption and outside influence by foreign and domestic agents.
America deserves better than Zuckerberg and Sandburg. They have no moral compass. If necessary shut down Facebook.
10
Facebook provides a platform for GRU abusing information hacked from other entities ranging from Equifax to banks, healthcare, porn, and consumer information firm hacks with consumer profiles etc. That is the secondary reason to control Facebook's security efforts. I know we assume all our info is "out there" but it is how it can be used by enemies.
Facebook is "outbound" citizen manipulation amplified by hacked data stolen from other entities or outright public data.
2
FaceBook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft type "too big to fail" tech companies need to be considered as monopoly. Such companies are now more powerful than many Government and also have more influence than many american government agencies/departments, as discussed here in NPR- https://goo.gl/9xe59f
We need to bring these tech companies under stricter tax laws (to properly disclose its revenues from various sources) and consumer protection laws, as we do for other companies, including those in financial sector.
We know that many Democratic leaders like Clintons are not much different than Trump type Republican ones. All these politicians- irrespective of party affiliation- are deliberately soft on or reluctant to holding such companies accountable. It's sad but a reality that many democrats are now more vocal about and many others can not or should not ignore.
4
Who would have thought a website for Ivy League graduates to keep in touch would ever lead to putting Trump in office.
I was JUST watching a documentary from CNN on Putin and how he rigged his elections with ballot stuffing. When people protested ? no kidding - Putin came up with the same message Trump uses - he blamed it ALL on ... you guessed it... Hillary Clinton.
Gee- looks like Putin is a MASTER at rigging elections... STRANGE how Trump never brings that up, but oh Florida- with no evidence- corruption in the voting process.
I'd argue the United States has been completely undermined, sure Facebook WAS used, we can't blame ALL the 'Blame it on Hillary' ads on Facebook now, but Facebook needs to own this. They SOLD their user data - and THAT shall cost them their ENTIRE corporate venture.
Once people start to realize just how badly Facebook sold them out to Russia proxy of Cambridge Analytica - they won't just dump the stock - they'll short it and celebrate 17 billion in profits from shorting it.
PURE SPECULATION on that by the way as to the future of Facebook as to it's stock but - Facebook needs to own what they sold out - they sold out their customers, 50+ MILLION US citizens data, I read upwards of 120 million in totality... TO Russia who THEN used that to shape ads directed AT Facebook users, who TRUSTING Facebook, thinking, gee- Facebook would never mislead me.
INDEED - Facebook SOLD OUT the American people to Russia who then exploited us all.
2
In the Frontline expose on Facebook it appears that Facebook is run by a bunch of rank amateurs who long ago should have sought out more experienced managers and a lot more of them to control the everyday business. Zuckerberg is a terrible representative for a Director of such a large Corporation. Maybe a lot of stuff happened out of incompetence but now they have an opportunity to correct the wrongs done to me -- an American individual entitled to better treatment.
2
Facebook has shown itself untrustworthy on many fronts. It deserves to be investigated and made accountable for what it has done and does not do to make itself a legitimate online entity. I am mulling over deleting my account, but I enjoy the ability to keep in touch with friends and family that I don't see often if at all these days. On the other hand, some of the stuff that is posted is totally unacceptable--not to mention dishonest and ridiculous. Shame on Zuckerberg who is in a position to do a lot of good in this world, but chooses instead to serve his own greed, arrogance and desire for power.
58
@Meg
Come on Meg. Delete it.
The effort required to keep in touch with friends and family is what gives it meaning. Anything effortless has no real value.
16
@Gary Taustine I just may. Thanks for the encouragement.
3
@Meg
I've never been on Facebook and I keep in touch with my 5 brothers, their wives, my 12 nieces and nephews, my 7 great-nieces and nephews, my Aunt, distant cousins and a plethora of friends just fine. You can do it Meg!!
3
I saw a video clip where Zuckerberg was asked what kind of company they were, and he responded that they were a technology company.
What he’s saying is that he, and perhaps the leadership of his company, hasn’t taken a lot of humanities classes and therefore does not have much of a moral compass of which to speak of.
In hindsight it was probably an enormous stretch for him to find a way to take his company from a technical exercise to a commercial one. Asking him to stretch even further to one with a moral compass is just a bridge too far. For him that is.
2
@Tim Kane
He's publishing and advertising with a lot of side gaming.
Congress now has the strength to act. Let them do so. No one is above the law. Especially Face Book.
6
Hmmm. I disagree that investigating Facebook should be the new House Democratic majority’s first priority. It would be yet another distraction from the primary investigation they need to support: that of Robert Mueller. Yes, the two may very well be linked. But anyone who in January takes the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, needs to have a clear sense of priorities.
2
The idea that Russians influenced the election is still a pretty crazy idea. I’m still waiting for the name of one person who changed their voting because of Russian activity. Just give me one name.
3
Facebook is a business. Like any business, their responsibilities are to their bottom line and their shareholders; but, of course, externalities will arise. And, of course, like any business, they will deny, deny, deny that they had any responsibility for these externalities. Unfortunately, in this instance, the externalities are the propagation of disinformation which has taken a toll on our democracy and civility toward one another. But, to quote The Godfather, "It's not personal. It's just business."
Congressional hearings could only reveal the size of damage allowed by the Facebook on its advertising platform but never force the social network company to retrieve the sold data--a clear case of breach of the public trust.
3
One very promising aspect of new generation of millennials is- they are not much interested in working with companies that they personally can not align with in terms of values and ethics, unlike past few generations. Money and other benefits are not that great attraction as it used to be a decade ago.
US and other Western governments need to restrict import of tech workers (particularly for mundane routine and/or entry level jobs) from abroad, mainly from countries like India and China where ethics and moral values are at its lowest and corruption is socially accepted. Otherwise such positive change can not be sustainable in US and other less corrupt democracies.
This seems to be a major reason for such tech and IT companies for being so aggressive to have a very open and liberal immigration policy and oppose any restrictions for H1B type visas.
American higher education and research sector is suffering from this very disease for last many decades, mainly since 1980s and now reached a very critical stage.
Wall Street is also feeling a talent shortage, as American young talents are no longer flocking to management and finance sector as they used to sometime ago.
1
I wish it was just Facebook or just social media, but the tech world is amoral. It failed to grow that trait as it grew, with some notable exceptions like Salesforce. This episode has been played out before as other major disruptive innovations commoditized and headed for utility status which comes with regulation. Facebook and other social media need regulation because we are in the final stages of creating an information utility that could accelerate world growth or crash it.
4
@DenisPombriant
Business is amoral today, viz. quote from comment above:
Facebook is a business. Like any business, their responsibilities are to their bottom line and their shareholders; but, of course, externalities will arise. And, of course, like any business, they will deny, deny, deny that they had any responsibility for these externalities. Unfortunately, in this instance, the externalities are the propagation of disinformation which has taken a toll on our democracy and civility toward one another. But, to quote The Godfather, "It's not personal. It's just business."
The society within which business exists, how it contributes to shaping that society, the political systems of the nations in which they operate, all just "externalities".
We should question FB’s moral compass. It’s appears they give people a platform to share their private information with family and friends, and then FB shares that information (and metadata) with businesses (something users don’t really understand fully) for the profit of FB. No surprise, I suppose, given FB’s original purpose when started at Harvard. If that’s what Sandberg and Zuckerberg want to do with their lives and power, they have been fantastic successes.
You would think, given the article on FB yesterday, in addition to all else we have learned in the press, that there would be a full-blown investigation by other government bodies, such as the SEC and others. Clearly, the lack of material disclosure in official statements, and decline in shareholder value are a matter for the SEC and others. Yes, legislation is needed. It seems as if every internet application takes personal information from people, and so do retailers who offer point clubs so they can track your buying and sell that data. There is no control over individuals privacy in this data mining age.
Finally, where is the BODs? Elon Musk is CEO, but not Chairman; so why can this not work at FB? It is a very common check and balance at major corporations. As for Zuckerberg and Sandberg, why hasn't the Board hired an outside law firm to do a special investigation into this matter as well as other companies policies. The Board must hold management accountable as well.
It seems there are many groups that can investigate and self correct individual privacy, political hacking, mismanagement, disclosure issues, etc.: Congress, Gov't Agencies, the Board, Shareholders, and so on. But who will take the first step? It alway seems the Board should start, and if not, the others should follow quickly. But everyone seems to have their feet stuck in cement. I wonder why?
8
@Brad -
Excellent summation.
3
@Brad
Why is it, every linking time, I forget to leave the link?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26260790
Rebekah Brooks emailing James Murdoch on how Tony Blair advises one get around any criminal business scandal. In this case it was News of the World's hacking, but it would work under any criminal circumstances. As long as you have traction with the government.
An unbridled horse is bound to nicker.
2
@Brad
Agree we need action, but facebook went with Republican outfits and deceptive measures to insure inaction. There will be none until the Dems take over the House. Unless facebook now flips to paying Dem outfits to field threats and harass critics for them.
Will Dems remember what facebook did to help Trump win, or will they exploit the same mechanism now that Mark needs their approval?
I always find Rebekah Brooks' email to James Murdoch passing along Tony Blair's advice one follow to get around a significant criminal scandal to be the gold standard.
Make a pretense of justice by exploiting retired coppers to clear you with a sham investigation, say a Giulliani type. Let him take freaking forever with the outcome, but make a big splash of the whitewash, then claim you won't break things in the future.
Mark is the Rupert Murdoch of the internet.
2
Haha. It is really a witch hunt. Russia is scary, scary, scary. All people should be afraid. Infection, meddling, influence, invasion .It is only show for some people who need to get the entertainment.
Tramp is guilty, Facebook is guilty - who is next? It is really too much Russia in American life I suppose.
Looks like a common sense is gone from that country
@Alexey Meanwhile your country (almost surely Russia) is a kleptocracy and arbitrarily jails people for opposing Tsar Putin. Stop meddling in our country's affairs if you know what is good for you.
1
@Alexey
Are you sipping the methanol again, Alexey? I know it's blowing holes in your permafrost, but now it has gone atmospheric? More smoking, please.
I go to the senior program for Tai Chi and lunch at the Chinese cultural center, and we have a hard time coming up with Russia's contributions to humanity. Eggs you can't eat. Ugly aircraft. Alcohol in copper buckets. I don't know what you are reading, but I see clearer skies ahead, even with a big head on.
2
Dear Abby - I forgot to ask you? Have you ever been in Russia? Ugly aircraft? I don’t know, maybe, but in Moscow we use usually modern Airbas and Boeng.
Concerning alcohol-it is not absolutely truth. I can buy anything I want. My friends drink Jack Daniels and Irish whisky, French wine also is available.
This company pleads for more h1bs and f1s to take jobs from us citizens.
Why?
Greed.
4
@Flo Baer
Is there a lack of qualified citizens for these jobs or not? I know my university no longer attracts the talent from Mexico we used to steal back after they got engineering degrees. Now they keep all that capital at home. Not even getting their degrees here these days so we pays and pays. Is that because we chased them away or because they don't like working for tyrannical iceflows?
@Flo Baer
Apart from our national tendencies, what kind of world would we have if we rewarded only merit? Then that would depend on what we believe has value.
A lunchmate told me we are crazy for not having the Chinese build us a cheaper infrastructure, like they did our railroad. A lot of nations have been exporting their human capital because they haven't enough work to offer their own.
But not so much from China. Did you see that wall they have? Trump is so jealous.
Facebook is run by people with very little life experience. Software is pedantic, and demands microscopic attention to details. Very little prioritization occurs. The platform is as vulnerable as its leaders would be, if plunked into the real world.
But there's a strong whiff of the pot calling the kettle black, here. A parallel story is unfolding about Wikileaks being pursued by DOJ, and it's potential to 'suppress' journalism. Just as Facebook faces the consequences of its sloppy willingness to cater to conservatives and the bottom line, so does the NYT, which egregiously ran Russian hacked stories from Wikileaks. Not to do so would have opened the Times to criticism from Republicans, and lost revenue from an eager-to-read-it public.
From the West Coast, it looks like the Times can't see the speck in its own eye, as it objects to the pursuit of Assange for revealing "truths". Maybe a little self-reflection about your role in Trump's election would help you understand the dilemma Facebook is in.
6
Mark Zuckerberg:
Born in 1984.
That explains everything.
10
Trump born in 1947. That explains everything.
To paraphrase an old axiom, there’s no such thing as a free app. Where is personal responsibility in this argument? If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn’t. Obvious trolls, repetitive posts, fantastical stories of pizza parlor child sex rings, cropped and doctored photos that appear in their entirety elsewhere and more that do not pass the sniff test shouldn’t sway anyone. Aren’t there any adults in the room/behind the keyboard?
70
@From Where I Sit: Were you referring to Facebook in your comment, or the NY Times? I'm old enough to remember the Judith Miller days; that egregious behavior on the part of the 'Paper of Record' has shown itself in this last election.
4
Agree about there not being a free App, but where to draw the line? Ads keep the NY Times affordable, for one.
Perhaps when highly personalized ads based on unacceptable privacy invasion are banned, the price companies pay for non-invasive general ads might increase again.
3
@From Where I Sit Caveot Emptor.
facebook, like all criminals, is not as smart as it thinks it is.
4
I guess SS decided not to "lean" into this one...
5
I now live in a small university town in Louisiana, and a week before the election a very friendly woman began talking to me. Out of the clear, blue sky she said, "You know that woman admitted she was lying today." I queried, "What woman?" She clarified she was talking about Blasey Ford and was adamant, adamant that Blasey Ford finally admitted lying under oath to the Senate. As a university journalism teacher, I was stunned I had not heard such a newsworthy and important revelation that day. I asked her which news organization was reporting this and pressed her on it. She finally admitted Facebook was her source. Be afraid, very afraid.
344
@Brian
OMG, the online attacks on Ford are beyond the pale. No one hates back like hyper-masculine failures. I've seen some outrageous junk, but as a survivor of a gang rape by DC area private school teens when I was eleven, I try not to over expose myself to violence porn.
Because I was a child and they were juveniles, and this occurred after the Gault decision, justice has no record of these teens who abducted me, bound gagged and blindfolded me, then asphyxiated me and sexually assaulted me. Ford said she was terrified Brett would suffocate her. My offenders nearly killed me with gas fuel fumes trying to remain undetected. And because of the Gault decision, even if they were adjudicated, even if they had killed me, you will never know about it. I never did. Apparently, this was considered best for child sex abuse victims.
Juvenile offenders ages 14 to 17 between 1967 and 1972 are without record. Murders, rapes and arson are unrecorded. Even victim witness statements have been expunged. Its as if it never happened. If only. I discovered this after Melania demanded the evidence. They haven't got any.
So law enforcement has a serious ommission of criminal history of juveniles just when we lowered the drinking age and militarized kids. Great. Those between 60 and 70 are suspect. No juvenile sex offender was registered between 1969 and 1972, when women finally said they had had enough of this permissiveness.
20
@Brian - Bingo. Facebook claims to be a platform with no responsibility to regulate "free speech." Your post highlights what scares me most: the failure of this "platform" to curate facts - thereby propagating so much garbage and so much influence. This curation is the value of a paid press. (thank you, NYT, Frontline and others - we've got your back). Facebook, Google Twitter - all represent new ground that need to be regulated if they aren't going to self-police their algorithms.
29
Facebook can be both an illegitimate and a legitimate news source. Someone who says they “read it on Facebook” hasn’t actually answered the “where did you get this news?” question fully.
You can share a NYT article on Facebook. If you read it on Facebook, that’s fine, but the source is NYT, not Facebook. If one of your Facebook friends writes a post saying “Blasey Ford lied under oath”, you’ve just read a comment with no primary source to back it up.
People that get their news from Facebook are getting news from everywhere. You should have gotten this person to tell you what the source was.
7
This capitalism at its worst, prioritizing profits over duty to one's country and protecting the integrity of a US election should have been a top priority. The ones in control at Facebook can not be trusted to police themselves as they are focused only on the billions in profits.
Dems - we are counting on you to stop the insanity. January can not come fast enough. Zuckerberg and Sandberg need to be held accountable to the American people, or the election in 2020 will be rife with Russian influence and disinformation.
3
The best regulation of Facebook will be achieved when Zuckerberg and Sandberg are criminally indicted and the network disbanded. One cannot expect any truth coming out of the mouth of these dishonest people. These nefarious activities must come to a complete stop!
3
Facebook is a failed experiment as is the concept of social media because what makes social media work is focusing on what drives peoples anger by observing their behavior with algorithms.
I had seen that sort of behavior and tribalization going on well before 2016 in my own use as people were fed the news they wanted based on their dislikes and had been rarely logging in for 2 years before the Trump disaster hit. When Trump was elected, I closed my account, refusing to support such a divisive paradigm.
People just need to realize Facebook knows more about you than you know about it and make a grown up decision about using it. Or not as in my case
4
History will judge the greater and lesser demons that brought on this era of chaos. The sources are known (mainly Russian disinformation and the infusion of Russian money into our politics), the abettors are known (RW media and 'conservative' PAC's), but those might not have come to full power if the last line of defense had done their patriotic and moral duties.
Zuckerberg, the official Republican Party, and Mitch McConnell have done their best anti-Paul Revere acts to bring us to this point. Facebook allowed its platform to build the forces for the invasion (a simple warning letter to users would have been nice); the GOP allowed a candidate and a campaign to use their party machinery to bring the invaders to our shores; and finally, Mitch McConnell refused President Obama's request to inform the populace that the invaders are here.
It's a failure of corporate and political responsibility. The fire has been burning for a long time, but those in position of leadership could have stopped it from becoming the full-on dumpster fire that we are living through.
6
Do we really believe that people are influenced about political material they see on Facebook? Facebook is about vacations and grandkids and very little else.
2
Facebook can't be trusted to regulate itself but Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline is willing to do it for us. Right! People step away from the ledge and come inside. Facebook was obviously duped by Russian trolls. They're on high alert now. Truthfully I doubt anyone there expected Trump to win. Perhaps they were misled by your Oct. 24, 2016 model that put HRC chances of winning at 85 percent. Yes? Lesson learned. Truthfully Facebook didn't have a big impact on Trump winning the 2016 election. HRC ran a poor campaign. But for arguments sake lets say it's true. So what. Would these same people complaining now if Facebook had swung the race in Hillary's favor? Absolutely not. We all know that. So lets stop the hypocrisy. Maybe establishment institutions despise the fact that the internet is going to leave them behind, obliterating their influence. Maybe they can't stand the fact the "people" who's will on Earth they purport to represent will need them less & less. When the Pope saw the first press in 1440 he was horrified. He's said to have shouted “This will destroy That. The Book will destroy the Edifice.” It was ecclesiastic terror before a new force: printing. It signified that one great power was to supplant another great power. The Printing-Press would destroy the Church. Yes it it did in some ways. But humanity in the end was better for it. And now the Internet is destroying a different Church. The media establishment. Isn't that the reason for your hand wringing?
4
The only way Congressional oversight makes any sense, and has a chance of being effective, is if the members of the oversight committee get up to speed on tech issues and how the platforms work. The last round of Senate Committee Oversight was a pathetic show of just how uniformed Congress remains. Maybe this Administration can ignore science but they cannot escape the algorithm.
92
@Judith Klinger
Oh, I don't know. Do you really need to know how a light saber or a time machine works in order to regulate it? Asimov wrote some great rules for robots well before we had robots, robot operating systems, and robot object models.
Expertise is what you have congressional staff for.
3
@Judith Klinger
Imagine an algorithm to position moral compass....
1
Yes, Facebook's execs have been irresponsible. And, yes, there need to be some standards of conduct for social media, ideally self-implemented but externally imposed if necessary. However, I think the problem is much bigger than just these companies. Before technology evolved to its current state, there were The National Inquirer and its ilk tantalizing us in the grocery checkout line with lurid and preposterous headlines and photos that stretched credibility beyond the limit for all but the most gullible. Social media platforms are just that in electronic form - uncurated, unedited gossip boards. The difference is that they are "free" (although not really) and readily available, and especially that millions of people either can't discern truth and reason from utter nonsense, or don't care to. And I don't have a clue how we can fix that, and I seriously doubt that anyone does.
4
@Michael
As I remind everyone on an almost-daily basis: “Ignorance can be cured, but stupid is genetic.”
Facebook is a massive unregulated monopoly in which all profits flow to the very very few and whose workers are actually all its billions of unpaid users.
In 1984, the US government forced AT&T, a very well functioning and highly regulated (by both the FCC and 50 state utility commissions) to break up. All it's employees were paid very well and phone service was affordable and accessible.
But the government knew AT&T had too much power and control and that competition was a good thing They were right. The break up led to competition and spawned much innovation that included the rise of mobile operators, wholesalers brining about cheaper long-distance calling, the email start-up AOL, and the fiber revolution that allowed for the internet boom -- all of which would have been either squashed or gobbled up if AT&T had its ways.
The only way to stop FB's concentrated power and its abuse of it is to break up the company.
6
@GM AT&T delivered the message, not the content. FB does both and that creates a whole other barge of problems.
5
@Judith Klinger I know. But a concentrated monopoly is a concentrated monopoly -- no matter the industry or type of product or service -- and not in the public interest.
"In short, Facebook capitalizes on personal information to influence the behavior of its users, and then sells that influence to advertisers for a profit. It is an ecosystem ripe for manipulation."
I'll say. But Zuckerberg and Sandberg go way beyond simple corporate irresponsibility--they actively helped the Russians by racing to protect their own brand while ignoring the foreign meddling on their watch.
Yes hearings are a must, if nothing to get Zuckerberg and Sandberg to look at the camera and admit the truth. After all, we've been treated to--the feigned concern and worried brows about how this could have happened, and promises to never let it happen again--Americans deserve candor.
Hold hearings, determine impact, and then decide if regulation is needed. Facebook started as a harmless way to stay in touch with family and friends and share photos.
It then morphed into this ugly but powerful cultural behemoth, triggering bullying, and political rantings, usually based on false information and conspiracy theories (the Soros aspersions are particularly offensive.)
The impact on Facebook's bottom line can be calculated, but the damage it's done to US society as a whole is incalculable.
82
The notion that somehow Democrats are going to rein in Facebook is quaint. Campaign donations will increase, lobbyists will be engaged, threats to fund opponents will be made, and life will go on, just as it did for the big banks following the financial crisis. Throw a few fundraisers and life is good. Republicans will enable, Democrats will overlook.
Sorry folks. It’s who we are.
9
Facebook is fascist without the military. A machine of lies that caters to rightwing conspiracies. Twitter is just as bad. Both were deleted by me after your headline yesterday.
4
Still calling this meddling?
1
@Claudia Richards
If by meddling, you mean fake accounts and feeds created by Russians, yes, and in fact it was far more now as Facebook itself admitted just recently to millions of fake accounts being purged. The site is now riddled with this stuff.
While it did not begin with the Russians, (see the 60 minute special on Americans that used it to profit), they understood and capitalized on its value.
1
The last time we had Congressional hearings the dinosaurs in Congress were so craven, confused, ignorant and stupid about Facebook social media technology that they looked and sounded like a chorus of cackling clowns.
"Well if it is free then how do you make any money?" Orin Hatch. " We sell ads. Senator we sell ads " Jeff Zuckerberg Hatch looked baffled while Zuckerberg smirked.
23
There are so many American business and government leaders not protecting our country and its citizens from other governments! What does Russia have on these folks?
2
"There is one surefire way to rein Facebook in. Unsubscribe."
Thank you WesternMass. Anyone who wants to be more open and connected can leave Facebook behind and give their friends a chance at meaningful conversation and a hug.
35
Because Facebook aspires to "bring people together" on a global scale and believes that it is endowed with "global responsibilities," its leadership -- while born and bred in the USA -- holds no particular allegiance to this country, other than perhaps to obey its laws while exploiting all available loopholes therein.
I suspect that this is a difficult notion for most readers to grasp, but if you have spent any length of time around cyber and internet professionals, or are active on the internet, you will know what I am talking about.
There are no / no boundaries on the internet. This is why people on the internet can say or write whatever they want under a cloak of anonymity. It is why our president uses Twitter to foment support amongst the masses who have neither the money nor the desire to read a real newspaper. It is why Russian disinformation flourishes.
The kids who run Facebook think that they are the world's intelligence professionals, what with all their access to proprietary information. The kids who run Facebook think that they can outsmart the Soviets / Russians and feel no need to inform the USG, to whom they feel they owe nothing.
Congress needs to investigate Facebook, top to bottom. While they are at it, take a look at Apple and the mysterious rice-sized computer chip that China has placed in our iPhones, but which Tim Cook -- who stashes away billions overseas to avoid paying taxes -- denies exists.
6
For crying out loud!
Facebook has, unfortunately, became an acceptable source of creepy money and no ethos.
No morals.
4
I was a staunch defender of Facebook for years. Mostly because I believed them. Even through last years Congressional hearings I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I find this recent revelations a deep betrayal. Having visited the seedy site NTK Network, and seeing how damaging right wing antisemitic conspiracy theories can be, Facebook has in my heart moved from being what I considered a trusted ally in the fight for democracy to a corrupting force in league with Eurasian fascist propagandists. Just last week I could have imagined supporting Mark Zuckerberg's bid for the Presidency, but now I would prefer the company be investigated and for everyone to be aware of these explosive new revelations.
They were supposed to be working for a better world, and fighting for action against climate change, hate, fascism and fake news. They should have been providing information that helped the world grow. Instead they were doling out money to a group dedicated to climate change denial, spreading fascism, stoking hatred, flirting with fascism, disseminating disinformation and pushing fake news.
2
FaceBook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, etc. should all be entirely shut down until the software, business models and companies are entirely restructured, reorganized and regulated.. The founders of these companies were all young, naive technologists eager for wealth and recognition who do not have the knowledge, experience and/or national security threat perspective to understand the potential implications of their Wowee, Geewhiz new capabilities. They were quick to adopt the advertising-based traditional media business models to grow their customer bases and wealth quickly, without giving any thought or consideration to the potential downside implications of how others might weaponize their platforms. They have fought discussions of regulation a la traditional media outlets fiercely by claiming to be "technology companies". In fact, given that their customers actually create the value-added to their platforms by their individual actions and/or addition of personal commentary, they become de facto media companies when they elevate posts, share fake news stories or popularize views using algorithms based solely upon numbers with no human editorial intervention. They now represent a viable national security threat to the Western democracies, and should be completely shut down by Homeland Security and NATO before far more and potentially worse damage is done to democracy in this increasingly terrifying world.
5
Hilarious that the Times Editorial Board thinks that Congressional hearings are an effective way of learning ANYTHING!
Modern Congressional hearings are nothing but televised stages for partisan show-boating.
Witnesses are always well-coached in diversion and Congress-people are laughably ignorant/uninformed, especially when it comes to the internet or technology, generally.
But yes, by all means, let's get Zuckerberg and Sandberg on TV and let them sweat and squirm for a while -- that's good television!
But don't expect to be any-the-wiser when it's all over.
9
If all people of intelligence would simply delete their Facebook (and Instagram) accounts, Facebook would have a moment of reckoning that would change its behavior almost instantly. Maybe it would go bankrupt, which would be a very positive development indeed. You can download all your files and pictures from the platform if you want to save them. But just delete, just go ahead and delete it all. You'll be surprised how much happier you are, and how much more time you have to do important things like read books, listen to music, go to plays or movies or take more walks with the dog, play with your children, love your spouse, water your garden, look at the blue sky, wonder at the beauty of the stars, volunteer to help hungry neighbors or people burned out of their homes by wildfires. You might even start to like your horrible relatives again, the ones you can't stand anymore because Facebook allowed you to see their bigotry and ignorance in all its glory. Social media makes people nasty and ill-tempered and amplifies their stupidity.
Go through your history and delete everything. When you realize how long it takes to delete everything you've ever posted, you'll be horrified by how much of your life you wasted on meaningless garbage. You'll never get that time back, but you can get more time now by stepping away from it for good.
Social media is meaningless. It's monetized gossip. Would you wallow in a sewer? That's what Facebook is. A toxic waste dump.
37
@Incredulous Amen. I'm in Tech, but I (and actually...and this is true of many around me), never bought into the social media story. It's absolutely no replacement for experiencing life beyond a screen. And, it doesn't take a wizard to realize their is a net loss to humanity and society, not a net gain from such platforms.
There are a lot of young new minds that will be coming into the Democratic House in January. Unlike the old white Republican Senate that has been bought off by special interest groups, that are working to keep Donald Trump's dysfunctional America in power. Of course Facebook has their hands dirty, they are motivated by two things, fear of Donald Trump and money. The Democratic majority hands are slowly being untied. Maybe, “truth justice and the American way” will be able to come forward. I can't remember the last time my conscience and my heartfelt clean. I truly feel like I am waking up for my two- year bad dream, and this one comes with the hangover.
4
"Mr. Zuckerberg publicly dismissed the notion that misinformation on Facebook had influenced the election, calling it 'a pretty crazy idea.'"
It is pretty crazy that a company could make billions of dollars, just from convincing people to hand over intimate personal details of their lives, only for it to be examined and analyzed so that each individual would be delivered the most effective advertising possible.
Then again, Mark Zuckerberg did drop out of college before actually getting an education, so how much blame could possibly fall on his shoulders? Oh, he's the CEO. He gets all the blame.
8
These people only care about how many properties they can buy to surround their many homes with privacy.
FB users privacy not at all.
4
“Facebook capitalizes on personal information to influence the behavior of its users, and then sells that influence to advertisers for a profit. It is an ecosystem ripe for manipulation.”
And why I shut down my Facebook account. It is not harmless shenanigans but nefarious calculations that should provoke a boycott against Facebook.
2
As Lord Acton put it in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Mark Zuckerberg is turning out to be the rule, not the exception.
3
No company with a business model based upon selling information about its customers (mostly unwitting customers, dare I say) should be allowed to exist without vigilant outside oversight.
3
This is, in a nutshell, why I never post anything personal on Facebook, even as a part of my social life is on it. it would serve MZ and SS right if FB were regulated, since they don't have any interest in doing it themselves. And I'm sure the Dems will go after them the way they're planning to go after Trump.
1
The Times’ coverage of Facebook feels out of balance. Yes, bad people exist, and Facebook and Twitter and YouTube give them a platform. But the dark and sinister intentions you ascribe to its leaders feel overwrought and unsupported. This is not Volkswagen or Russia. Facebook indeed faces an absolutely daunting task if it is to scrub and vet every one of its 2 billion users and its understandable that the means to do that take time to develop and are hard to implement when seeking to uphold the properly fundamental freedoms of speech and association. Facebook has been a victim of Russia and haters and hackers but that does not make them their moral equivalent.
1
@Benjamin G.
"Victim" I respectfully disagree. I work in IS security for a top 5 global ecommerce platform. In our weekly meetings during the run up to the 2016 election. The manipulation of FBs platform and who was behind it was an often discussed topic. They knew full well that their customers were being spoon fed propaganda, but chose profit over customers.
And the WORST part about Facebook is
It played such a critical role in manipulating people during the 2016 election? It's probably why we even HAVE Trump.
THAT is the danger here.
Me? I foresee a block chain - CONSENSUS DRIVEN - ZERO CENSORSHIP social networking framework emerging in the next few years.
But as President Obama said at the Nelson Mandela gathering- to high school students? the most important thing you need to develop are critical thinking skills- because you may THINK you are on Facebook but you have seamless ads mixed in with content now - and Mark is more than happy to take money from anyone that wants to pay for those ads.
The problem is you can't RELY on integrated media, especially with seamless advertising. I think I saw Hillary Clinton is evil as an ad on almost every web page for over 1 YEAR - 2015.
So - I'm getting CRITICAL about whether it's HEALTHY to use Facebook- which SHOULD be renamed ADCENTER4U.
We had Geocities - heh- LONG time ago- rather linear - then MySpace shows up - Murdoch from NewsCorp buys THAT - now Facebook- but Facebook got us Trump so something will come along and leave Facebook wondering where 119 billion went overnight during some mass stock selloff, people left MySpace in DROVES when Murdoch bought it.
Now that we are finding out Facebook SOLD user data to Cambridge Analytica who gave it to Russia to THEN run ads ON Facebook BASED ON THAT DATA?
POOF goes Facebook - and GOOD RIDDANCE TOO.
4
We will, unfortunately, be required to wait until the new Democratic majority is seated in the House of Representatives in January. Until then, the lame duck 115th session of Congress will content itself with the "small affairs" of government; that is, doing exactly nothing.
Facebook needs to be regulated just like any other public utility. The public trust requires no less. We have seen, from at least 2016, that this company cannot and will not regulate itself so that the resultant harm arising from its gross irresponsibility is well nigh irreparable.
1
And here I thought fb was developed as a place to connect with friends and family, and show baby, pet and vacation pics. Silly me.
1
So often, when we worry about Hi-tech, the conversation is about Artificial Intelligence. What worries me far more is artificial emotions. Intelligence can take care of itself, and I'm confident that it will, but the emotional purgatory of the "Like me! Like me!" culture is both sad and frightening.
I'm so very glad I've never logged onto, or even looked at, this two dimensional carnival of plastic horrors, this bloated and corrupt advertising company, masquerading as a common thread for humanity.
2
Ever since he broke the law with his computer antics as an undergraduate at Harvard, and then dropped out to pursue "Facebook" in Silicon Valley—
Mark Zuckerberg has displayed a breathtaking arrogance. He made so much money he could easily buy himself out of his blunders.
With his complete control of the company as CEO and majority shareholder and chairman of the board, the need for oversight should have been a no-brainer.
1
“Mr. Zuckerberg publicly dismissed the notion that misinformation on Facebook had influenced the election, calling it “a pretty crazy idea.”” Well do his advertisers agree? Not that they would ever put up misinformation, but everyone knows that advertisers make lots of money and succeed in changing consumer minds and increase the sales of products advertised.
Most Americans continue to imagine or believe that the tsunami of misinformation, propaganda, lies, and deceit that Russia directed at them personally did not change their behavior because they did not know Russia was doing it and did not know that Russia has their FB profile today.
What is most disturbing is that the press has failed to address the probable outcome of targeted propaganda using advertising results as a comparison, The press has never discussed the number of voters who changed their voting behavior using statistical probability that advertisers use daily. There is a predictable outcome. Why doesn’t anyone provide that? Isn’t there a mathematician, statistician, behavioral psychologist out there who could help? If one has access to 100 million profiles, what percent will change their behavior?
2
Facebook is like some kind of emotional cocaine. It gives people a high they can't get anywhere else. But the pushers are more insidious than drug dealers because the drug is "free".
Well not really free. We gave up our minds to the poison that Facebook injects into them. Facebook has become our robotic overlord, pulling our strings and implanting thoughts directly into our minds. It's as if some evil super villain implanted a mind control device inside our brains.
We allow the device to function because our laws consider its use legal because we voluntarily use it. No one is forced to use the drug. But the same can be said for cocaine. People voluntarily use it but it is banned because of what it does to us.
The Facebook drug activates some kind of self serving grandiosity that is just too strong to avoid. Everyone becomes a star and for the price of stardom, our minds get polluted with poison.
The only way to fix Facebook is to make it fee based and stop all information feeds. Stop selling stuff on Facebook. Stop using it as a window to the world because it isn't. It's a window to mind control.
I don't Facebook and have no online presence except right here. I spend my online time writing comments and reading real news instead of who had a ham sandwich for lunch.
The original idea to Facebook was to connect people together. It has become instead a way to connect people to mind control machines to sell us stuff and control our behavior.
9
Facebook, like any other tool, can be used responsibly or irresponsibly.
A kitchen knife can be used to prepare a gourmet meal or to kill one's dinner guest.
Blaming Facebook is like blaming the knife.
As someone who has worked in a regulated industry for over 35 years, I have observed that if the manner of regulation is not fairly obvious, then drafting rules of behavior will either underreach or overreach.
The easiest solution to a tool like Facebook once its risks outweigh its benefits is to, like me, stop using it.
Through its disuse, the tool will improve itself, or someone will design a better one.
5
Those kinds of conservative, laissez-faire attitudes have served us so well! Yes, let's keep that up.
1
Here's a basic fact that I would think any 8 year old understood by now. Any "free" application or internet derives profit from advertising and selling information about its customers. Facebook is not a charity. Facebook is not a news organization, or even a media company. Wake up and smell the coffee.
17
While Zuckerberg gets most of the attention but insufficient accountability for the evil of Facebook, Sandberg is in the same league of evil. Both exhibit traits that are often lionized today, but are a big part of the deterioration of Western culture. While it takes a clinical diagnosis to determine sociopathy, these lionized traits are very strong characteristics of diagnosed sociopaths. We are letting these kind of people destroy our society. Whether or not we are on the irreversible downside of the precipice or not I don't know, but we are certainly getting dangerously close at the very least.
9
I'm betting that FB remains as it is. Congress doesn't want to regulate much about the internet. Especially part of it where they get to influence minds.
FB and Twitter are a favorite of Politicians to 'cut to the chase'. With these tools they don't have to be vetted by legacy media. They use your social network, instead of old media.
The only people exposing FB are legacy media groups like NY Times, FrontLine, and others. Hats off to them for the great information.
Thanks NYT!
7
I feel particularly duped by Sandberg because of the promotion of her book about death and grief shortly before all this happened -- a real loss, yes, but one that somehow made her seem more approachable, more like the rest of us, a working mother, rather than a profit-driven and opaque capitalist. If Facebook is really interested in transparency and collecting information about us, they need a few more buttons, starting with "GET REAL," meaning get out of the ether of privilege in which so many of the wealthy now dwell and be honest with the public who had made them rich.
8
It has always surprised how easily people have allowed themselves to become the product that companies sell. And is anyone surprised that money is the sole priority and motivating factor for these social media companies, facebook being among the worst of them? I have but one social media account, LinkedIn, and it was with a fair bit of reluctance that I signed up for that one.
1
The current preponderance of evidence indicates that Facebook has little or no interest in "bringing people together" and their arguments against regulation clearly demonstrate the gaping divide between moral responsibility and corporate profits.
Guess which argument wins?
In my best Yoda voice, let me just note "The Farce is strong in this one."
1
Facebook gained substantial influence because people and organizations flocked to it and gave it power.
When I have to log in to the Times, there are options for logging in using Facebook or Google credentials. I never had a Facebook account, but do have a Gmail accout, which I use for junk email.
I choose to log in to the Times by using my Times account credentials. I don't want Facebook or Google to keep track of when I logged in to The NY Times or what I read. Not that there is anything shameful about reading the Times. I use Ghostery and other tools as well to reduce the amount of tracking that is done Google, Amazon, et al.
By the way, it is only a matter of time before Google and Amazon get into hot water over their tracking activities.
23
Will Mr. Schumer and (certainly many) others with a vested interest in maintaining status quo, be able to stay away from protecting said interests?
The corporate lobbying game is strong. Will the members of the People's House be stronger?
2
@Mary don't kid yourself, it isn't just Dems that protect these evil doers. I will grant they have more motivation because most of not all of these platforms trend to favour SJW thinking, but ultimately the platforms are simply tools used to manipulate the public.
These tech companies are engaged in a massive form of illegal surveillance that will always pose a threat to both fundamental individual freedoms and to national security.
They must be regulated in order to force them to behave responsibly.
5
THE LIBERTARIAN CREEDO Of Silicon Valley, more than a philosophical stance, is a pragmatic position, that what is good for the bottom line is the ultimate good. That trend started during the era of Ronnie Ray Gun, when the articles of incorporation were changed to exclude the traditional opening statement, In order to improve _______, the corporation is being formed to provide __________ goods and services. Thus, such a quaint, un GOP-like notion, as corporate good citizenship, was thrown under the bus so that the rapacious greed of the pre-1929-crash stockmarket could be pursued. The highest good was whatever produced the highest quarterly earnings reports for stockholders (a group not particularly known for their civic-mindedness). That position under the misguided "libertarian" moniker of, Do No Evil, while creating the cyberworld equivalent of the Wild West, where the law was created at the end of the barrel of the fastest gun. Yes, the stock market was once again weaponized against the general public, and crashed in 2008. Facebook's priorities are clearly, the best possible quarterly stockholders reports. The idea that "everyone was doing it" is scarcely an excuse for amoral action. Facebook, while giving over to the Fifth Column, access to hacking by the Russians, that proved to be so disruptive during the 2016 election. Facebook, google and others must distinguish between anarchy and freedom. Otherwise the US deteriorates and is no longer a nation of laws.
7
Facebook had data scientists embedded in the Trump campaign digital ops. They showed them how to best leverage the Facebook API to target voters. Think about that. Those Facebook employees need to be called to testify, as they surely have insight on the targeting and the propaganda that was used, and any overlap and coordination with Cambrisge Analytica and the GRU's Internet Research Agency.
72
@ADM perhaps this is true, but a similar story can be told about the Dems. The data available to both sides and sold to both sides because in the amorality of unmitigated capitalism only money matters in the end, enables what is effectively mind and thought control.
4
@ADM
I don't doubt anything you've written.
My question to you: Do you imagine that Democrats (your party of choice?) were so out-of-touch and incompetent that they didn't use the same (or similar) techniques?
3
@dbsmith I don't be cause any Democrat would have contacted the FBI about foreign interference. Only your side appears to want us to be a satelite of Russia.
6
The issue we have now in front of us clearly based on the exhaustive investigative journalism is how will regulators and oversight bodies become digital, media, and data experts in a timely fashion?
The last hearings were a farce; on one hand you had congressional leaders showing their lack of competency in the area and topics, and as the NYT investigation shows on the other hand there was nefarious lobbying mechanisms deployed.
So the case for regulation is there but does Congress have the expertise or appetite and resolve?
As a citizen hating what smart phones and social media are doing to democracy - we need a Hail Mary here!
11
@Rako the biggest job and highest priority of the average congressman, esoecially in the House with the ridiculous 2 year cycle, is to get reelected and digital media is the biggest weapon to that end and ultimately most see effectively limiting it as unilateral disarmament. They ain't REALLY going there.
2
@Rako Could not agree more that the last hearings were a wake up call as to just how clueless Congress is regarding digital media.
But I have a question, all these charges of greed over social conscience that are being thrown at FB, Twitter, YT, Google, could you not say the exact same things about Philip Morris, Exxon, Mobile, the sugar industry, the NRA, big pharm etc etc? Including the fact that Congress is still beholden to those industries.
2
Thank you to the NY Times for its investigation of Facebook and this editorial. Hopefully with enough sunlight, they will yet be reigned in.
19
Apart from everything said so far, which I fully agree with, there's another major issue Facebook is failing to address: its Abuse Department.
As a former Abuse and Security officer, I can tell that I have had humans review and respond to each incident that has reached our department, regardless of the size of the daily queue. We felt we owe that to our customers. In Facebook's case, this is an automated process mostly. Which is OK, if the process was working. But one's account could get suspended if 10 people report it, regardless of whether there is a real problem/violation or not. Then, you can't reach anyone to dispute this. Facebook is just too big to care. Looks like they have lost control of the platform - it's turning into a hydra that could bite the ones who have the most money.
27
Just a friendly reminder: YouTube is a social media platform that is just as harmful and toxic as Twitter and Facebook, but it seems to be slipping under the radar.
89
I totally agree with your editorial. However, there are two problems, the first perhaps being larger. Congressmen don't have the technical expertise to tell if Facebook's "fixes" will actually solve any problem I recall Zuckerberg repeatedly telling Congressmen that Facebook had already repaired its flaws.
The second is that Republicans still control the Senate. There is no way they will take action against the company that got Trump elected. They would also undoubtedly welcome having Russians use Facebook to get Trump and the rest of them elected in 2020.
111
@Jerry S
I'm sure first problem could be resolve by bringing a team of tech experts to guide the government officials to ask the right questions and suggest potential solutions, and yes GOP controls the senate, but they don't have a power of the purse, so if senate doesn't behave there will be a huge price to pay.
8
@Jerry S
Agree and agree. We are caught in a time warp in which Facebook--and, I'm sure, other social media--is just about 100% automated and, with very few exceptions, the people with the authority to really dig and then take action just don't have enough skill to tackle the technology.
Zuckerberg and Sandberg have every reason for those smug, self-satisfied looks. They have created a monster and there doesn't seem to be any real threat to their system. They can just wait it out.
3
@Jerry S
Wait- you actually READ the articles ?
YIKES - about 2 years ago I just started reading the headlines and jumping right to the comments.
Maybe I should give it a read hmm.. (I am only 79% kidding here)
1
There is one surefire way to rein Facebook in. Unsubscribe. Maybe users leaving in droves will wake them up. I unsubscribed a couple of months ago and I highly recommend it.
205
@WesternMass It is the only way actually.
11
@WesternMass
I agree but that's easier said than done. Facebook has become a serious addiction to many who live to post family pictures, where and what they eat and with whom, share their political views and what they do every single day. It has become so overbearing that I've had to unfriend people who were sending out up to 100 posts a day. It was getting to the point where I could barely find time just to delete all the Facebook emails, much less read any of them. If you're counting on these people to unfriend Facebook, you better come up with a better plan.
8
@WesternMass
I can top that: never subscribe in the first place.
15
Sounds good in theory, but are the jellyfish who ask the questions at congressional hearings really going to hold Mr. Zuckerberg's and Ms. Sandberg's feet to the fire from now on and ask the tough ones -- and then do something about it? Something beyond lip service, that is.
There's a lot of tough talk now, but when it comes time for long-overdue action on behalf of the American people, and you're actually expecting any, don't hold your breath.
Based on past practice, the sound you'll most likely hear is the can being kicked down the road.
32
@Dotconnector jellyfish lol...... The mystery to me is why the public stick with it. FB seems to behave like a predatory wasp that has stung its prey, immobilised it and drags it around with a ring through its nose, while consuming it (or their data )
3
Facebook can no longer be trusted. They have lied to us repeatedly. There is no need to rehash the sordid details that came out yesterday. Facebook's capacity to cause harm is immense. They are, after all, a natural monopoly and one of the most powerful companies in the world. They need to be regulated by an outside agency. They cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. This regulation must, in plain terms, make it simply impossible for them to be coopted again. They must never again be permitted to facilitate or incite genocide, state propaganda, the undermining of democracies, and the like.
229
@Robert-Let's hope that the more enlightened and technically educated EU succeeds in leading the way.
21
@Robert
Why did you ever think they could be trusted?
Have you ever heard the phrase: There is no such thing as a free lunch?
Surely, you must have understood they were getting revenue from somewhere.
4
@mj
Thanks for your reply. I don't believe my comment said anything about whether or not I believe in free lunches, Neither did it say that I did not know where they were getting their revenue from. I believe the context made my meaning quite clear. The federal government has not regulated Facebook at all. That is, they are trusting Facebook, which is a natural monopoly, to regulate themselves. Moreover, as it happens, we now have less regulation than at any time since the 1920s.
7
Silicon Valley has always been nihilistic, nimbly accepting money from Defense contractors, politicians, and corporations who are endlessly trying to sell us products that we don't need.
How do I know this? I graduated from Berkeley in 1969, and worked for three of the earlier firms on the San Francisco Peninsula in the 1970's. Only one of them- Alten Solar of Mountain View (located near the current HQ of Google)- had an actual mission, in their case building solar panels.
Let's not even talk about the other two. Now, it's far worse: Google, Twitter, and Facebook have become behemoths by plundering Huxley's 1984 playbook: Spying, and then selling data to advertisers, who in turn are pitching products that we don't need. Their "neutrality" is a joke. Tech firms feed at the trough of our most successful corporations, whose missions are mostly malevolent: drugs we don't need, weapons we should never use, beauty products that won't help, and everything except thinking, loving the earth and its creatures, and working toward a livable and peaceful future.
In my naivete, I assembled some of our best minds during the 2016 AGU in San Francisco, to pitch getting Tech to help slow our suicidal path:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMQ3iSQIu2Y&feature=youtu.be
It landed with a thud. How dare we suggest that anyone give up a sliver of their corporate profits? If you can take this criticism and act, Tech, all is forgiven.
[email protected]
131
No one needs Facebook, Twitter, or Google. I deleted my account to FB years ago and have felt wonderful ever since. Never felt the need to tweet - but they sure make you feel like you need it, don’t they? Switch to DuckDuckGo. They don’t track your searches.
10
@Mike Roddy Props to you!
My sincere thanks to free press outlets like the NY Times, PBS Frontline, and 60 Minutes for their recent spotlight stories on Facebook. Until now, Congress has done nothing to reign in social media companies, although as the article says, now with the Democrats in control of the House, perhaps new hearings will change things. Let's hope.
This is precisely the kind of reporting President Trump calls "fake" - well-researched, documented, and verified. And it is this kind of reporting that should remind us all of the necessity of a free press. Politicians will not hold Facebook accountable unless the company's misdeeds are exposed, and Washington begins to feel the pressure to do something.
308
@jrinsc. " FB has a culture problem and Congress is the only one who can fix it at this point.“
FB should have called the FBI. Now they have an existential problem. Instead of aiding democracy they, even if they get disappeared, will have contributed to the risk of its demise.
7
@jrinsc
Its unfortunate that FB was unable to police themselves after the election when it was known that the Russians infiltrated their website. But what incentive did they have in a Republican controlled Congress who looked upon the favorable election results no mater the means to get there.
As powerful as Mr. Zuckerberg thinks he is, no one is above the law.
He may have been able to subvert the issue with a Republican Congress and their hired hands. But its a new day with Democrats controlling the House and the majority of Americans who want to understand just what happened to the 2016 election.
9
Facebook a.k.a. Sheryl Sandberg and Mark Zuckerberg knew that they love money. They knew that advertising revenue made them the new P. T. Barnums of the digital world. The more members on Facebook, the more advertising, the more money. Why Mark Zuckerberg told the world it was crazy that Facebook could bear any responsibility for skewing the election when his security people knew that it did? Money. The actual statement 'a billion dollars is cool' may be apocryphal, but the sentiment is alive and well at 'The Facebook'.
73
Changing Facebook's behavior is problematic given Mr. Zuckerberg's ownership of 60% voting control. He absolutely controls the company and its activities.
Suppose Facebook, as a company, had a valid legal cause of action against Mr. Zuckerberg. He could prevent the company from bringing that suit. With his voting control, he can do anything with Facebook.
Maybe it's time for a shareholder's derivative suit - one in which shareholders lodge a legal action that the company would be entitled, but chooses not to, pursue. I think that would enable remedies on behalf of Facebook against Mr. Zuckerberg regardless of his voting control.
Facebook, and all of us, would be well served by taking Mr. Zuckerberg's toy away. Representative Cicilline is right - we cannot trust it to regulate itself. But there are legal channels by which better management could be installed.
54
I interviewed at FB last year. I told my interviewer that we need to defend against our enemies like Russia to protect our country. Her paraphrased response: "We're an international company and do not have enemies." FB has a culture problem and Congress is the only one who can fix it at this point.
282
@James Big international corporations are not citizens of a particular country; their mission is making $. The digital industry should be look at and regulate but, with Trump/GOP deregulation , it is better to wait for the EU than the US to keep them "honest"!
33
FB is also susceptible to political pressure in a way that the other big tech companies are not because so many of their employees are here on H1-B visas.
She was right that they’re an international company, and it also means they can’t afford to get on the wrong side of the Republicans who are holding the reins.
29
@yves rochette The Citizens United Decision means that they ARE citizens of the United States. Much more worthy citizens than those of us who occupy mere flesh and bone bodies, because they have unimaginably more money and reason to affect the political process to fatten their profits.
13