Facebook vs World Governments

[richardg]

I can't work out whether his angle really is about protecting people around the world from dodgy governments, eg HK citizens, listening to what facebook users say they want etc....or if he is saying don't mess with me and stop fining me or I will make life difficult for you.

I suspect the latter.

And I can't trust the governments' points either. We need access to protect countries from terrorism and kids from paedophilia

 

[Tony L]

Have you a link to what I assume is a statement by someone that you are quoting from? Who is ‘his’?

 

[richardg]

Have you a link to what I assume is a statement by someone that you are quoting from? Who is ‘his’?

Sorry Mark Zucherberg, there was a clip on R4 an hour ago where he said it was incredibly important to protect people like Hong Kong citizens from snooping, unreasonable governments. He went onto say his customers all repeatedly mention privacy as a demand. So that is why he is moving to encryption.

 

[Tony L]

Sorry Mark Zucherberg, there was a clip on R4 an hour ago where he said it was incredibly important to protect people like Hong Kong citizens from snooping, unreasonable governments. He went onto say his customers all repeatedly mention privacy as a demand.

He certainly has a valid point. We are in a whole new territory with social media and global technology companies and to my mind Facebook, Twitter etc provide a very important and valuable communication method that exists above the tyranny of individual nation states. I fully support this, though I have huge issues with just how uncensored it is (e.g. it ends up being a safe space for fascists, racists, religious extremists, homophobes, child abusers etc) and I have real concerns about political entities of any colour being able to buy advertising, or worse data-mine in any context.

I’m certainly far more positive than many regarding this technology, which I guess is no surprise as I’m a long-standing computer geek and also an anti-nationalist. Anything that breaks down global boarders and enables free information sharing is a good thing in my book. I’d just like to see much more customer/end-user-pressure pushing these companies towards far faster and more responsible censorship of the more repugnant aspects they inadvertently end up hosting. As an example it took far, far too long to hoof fascist shit like Yaxley Lennon off the platform, and he is really high profile, there are tons more abusing the platform beneath the surface.

 

[droodzilla]

Richard Seymour's latest, The Twittering Machine is mandatory reading for anyone interested in what drives the new global media giants:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1999683382/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21

It's also unsparing in its analysis of what drives us to use social media ("we are all addicts").

It's a sober and sobering analysis that digs deeper than the usual liberal moral panic.

 

[richardg]

Richard Seymour's latest, The Twittering Machine is mandatory reading for anyone interested in what drives the new global media giants:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Twittering-Machine-Richard-Seymour/dp/1999683382/ref=sr_1_1?crid=ZPHCBC826QHF&keywords=twittering+machine&qid=1570178433&sprefix=twitteri,aps,162&sr=8-1

It's also unsparing in its analysis of what drives us to use social media ("we are all addicts").

It's a sober and sobering analysis that digs deeper than the usual liberal moral panic.

Not focussing just on twitter?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

We are in a whole new territory with social media and global technology companies and to my mind Facebook, Twitter etc provide a very important and valuable communication method that exists above the tyranny of individual nation states. I fully support this, though I have huge issues with just how uncensored it is (e.g. it ends up being a safe space for fascists, racists, religious extremists, homophobes, child abusers etc) and I have real concerns about political entities of any colour being able to buy advertising, or worse data-mine in any context.

The problem is that the system as it stands is inherently anti-competitive and closed. You don't own what you post or control how others can exploit it. Nor can anyone tell who may be controlling what anyone 'sees'. Thus there is no accountability or ability to check what the big quasi-monopoly organisations are doing to us. And people end up feeling they have no alternative.

As I've heard suggested by others: The solution is a *distributed* open source basis for a 'facebook like' platform where each user owns and controls what they put up, and can then remove or change it. But allows anyone else to see what is 'posted' when it is made public.

The WWW was designed to do this, so it is clearly possible. But of course, it may mean a big central quasi-monopoly can't 'sell' the content or info on what people 'like' and then manipulate what each user sees - or *doesn't* see - to suit others who are paying them in secret to manipulate what people will 'know'.

Farcebook encryption is just another stage in the process of extending control. Put it this way: Will their 'encryption' means that *Farcebook* can't tell what you are saying, or who is reading it, etc? And do you believe them?...

 

[wacko]

Facebook should never have been allowed to buy Instagram. It should be broken up like all the other tech quasi-monopolies: competition is central to the capitalist system and cannot work with private monopolies.

 

[claire.foxx]

competition is central to the capitalist system and cannot work with private monopolies.

Oh my sweet, sweet summer child.

 

[Tony L]

As I've heard suggested by others: The solution is a *distributed* open source basis for a 'facebook like' platform where each user owns and controls what they put up, and can then remove or change it. But allows anyone else to see what is 'posted' when it is made public.

That is clearly a nice idea, but you have to fund it. Really fund it. Developing, hosting and especially moderating entities of this scale costs insane money, and it is here open source alternatives will fail unless they have a very clear financial model and ability to generate real income. Even relatively slow-moving entities such as Wikipedia (I’m not knocking it, I’m a huge fan) suffer from countless false edits and inadequate moderation etc, and the difference between content/upload quantity there and on the bigger social media platforms is simply monstrous.

Any potential alternative needs a viable financial model to fund these costs, and that financial model has to be well above the nation state level. Love it or hate it Facebook is already financially viable, global and largely independent of petty state controls. It needs to grow from a moderating perspective and respond to customer pressure in this area, but we are in the early days of this technology.

 

[Marky-Mark]

I still can't fathom why intelligent people need a book to tell them there are addictive elements afoot when they get twitchy if their service goes down or if they're banging refresh on their latest selfie for upvotes like a junkie flicking his hypo.

 

[Marky-Mark]

... and to my mind Facebook, Twitter etc provide a very important and valuable communication method that exists above the tyranny of individual nation states.

It's all toothless when they pull the plug on the net.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/11/shut-s11.html

 

[Tony L]

It's all toothless when they pull the plug on the net.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/09/11/shut-s11.html

Agreed. I certainly trust Facebook, Twitter or Google far more than the UK government, and we have far from the world’s worst here! There is an ugly strain of authoritarianism both in the right and left of our politics and most of them don’t even understand what the internet is, let alone the freedoms and civil liberties it represents.

 

[droodzilla]

Not focussing just on twitter?

No. Social media in general.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

That is clearly a nice idea, but you have to fund it. Really fund it. Developing, hosting and especially moderating entities of this scale costs insane money, and it is here open source alternatives will fail unless they have a very clear financial model and ability to generate real income. Even relatively slow-moving entities such as Wikipedia (I’m not knocking it, I’m a huge fan) suffer from countless false edits and inadequate moderation etc, and the difference between content/upload quantity there and on the bigger social media platforms is simply monstrous.

I agree to a large extent. But the reality is that people working Free Libre Open Source are the main 'funding' for such projects as GNU/Linux, Wikipedia, etc. So it can be done. And, frankly, if it isn't, we're all falling into deep do-do. As recent events show.

TANSTAAFL

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Agreed. I certainly trust Facebook, Twitter or Google far more than the UK government, and we have far from the world’s worst here! There is an ugly strain of authoritarianism both in the right and left of our politics and most of them don’t even understand what the internet is, let alone the freedoms and civil liberties it represents.

I disagree. The point is that FarceBook Twitter, etc *facilitate* the ability of the shady backers of BloJo and their ilk to get into power. We *do* have a vote, so can chuck them out, but we can't vote to decide who runs FarceBook, etc. We are their *product*, not their constituents. So without FarceBook, etc, we wouldn't now be in the state we are in. And until we deal with that, the problems they cause for the sake of the profit and power of a few will only grow.

 

[Tony L]

I disagree. The point is that FarceBook Twitter, etc *facilitate* the ability of the shady backers of BloJo and their ilk to get into power. We *do* have a vote, so can chuck them out, but we can't vote to decide who runs FarceBook, etc. We are their *product*, not their constituents. So without FarceBook, etc, we wouldn't now be in the state we are in. And until we deal with that, the problems they cause for the sake of the profit and power of a few will only grow.

As I think I implied above I’m in a kind of neutral position with Facebook. I have no issues at all with a capitalist motive, I think they have as much right to monetise their platform as you have to sell your knowledge and experience as an electronics specialist, university lecturer or whatever. In my own little way I use similar models here as the alternative would be no pfm, and for me, no job. I am totally at ease with the advertising aspect and Facebook fields me adverts for audio kit, guitar pedals and whatever I’ve recently been searching for on Amazon, eBay or whatever. I’d go as far as arguing it was useful, certainly far better than being fielded adverts for cars, hamburgers, jewellery or countless other things I’d never buy in a million years.

My issue, like I suspect yours, is with political data-mining. I never want to be fielded an advert/propaganda from Brexit “Party”, Britain First,or for that matter Another Angry Voice, Momentum or whatever and I always click the ‘do not send me content from x’ option when I get them (a useful feature I suspect many haven’t found). I even quietly unfriended someone recently as they kept sharing gammony ugliness that I just do not want popping up on my feed.

I would love to see Facebook ban political and religious advertising and properly moderate their closed groups so fascists, racists, homophobes etc are given the hoof swiftly as they should be on any decent platform. If I can afford not to take money from that sort of shite here I see no reason why they can’t do similar on a global stage. Even at this stage it is very customisable, though I speak as an IT guy with a lot more experience than the typical user. I also very much control the information they have on me and how I use it. I fully understand the cost of usage, and to be honest I have little issue beyond those I have stated. I’m certainly not an anti-capitalist or anything. I use it as much as I want, use competing platforms for other things, e.g. I spend most of my time here, on Steve Hoffman’s site etc. I certainly don’t use the Facebook audio or guitar groups much and far prefer the proper dedicated forums.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

As I think I implied above I’m in a kind of neutral position with Facebook. I have no issues at all with a capitalist motive, I think they have as much right to monetise their platform as you have to sell your knowledge and experience as an electronics specialist, university lecturer or whatever. I

My issue, like I suspect yours, is with political data-mining. I never want to be fielded an advert/propaganda from Brexit “Party”, Britain First,or for that matter Another Angry Voice,

I'm also OK with some forms of 'capitalism'. Which for me means both a genuinely competitive arrangement and open scrutiny of who is doing what, and what isn't allowable, etc. The problem is that 'capitalism' varies. The obvious example is monopoly/cartel 'capitalism'. Which gets regulated for obvious reasons.

The snag (as per the Paul Mason books I've mentioned a lot recently) is that the basis of 'capitalism' has actually morphed during the last few decades, and 'information' is a key aspect of that change. Which isn't regulated because we and the politicians didn't all see it coming. It now requires regulation just as manufacturing or sectors like oil production did to avoid situations like monoply or 'trusts' or cartels.

Take an earlier example. What happened when Kodak ended. The assets - mainly IPR - were highly valued. But a number of big US corporations did what Antiques dealers in the UK 'ringed' it. They all sat in a room and decided to bid low and not big against each other, then divvy up the spoils between them later on. Thus the creditors, etc, of Kodak got shafted. At the time this was legal in the USA, but I suspect it isn't now.

In effect, companies like FarceBook are international quasi-monopolies. We work for them by giving them our information. They have also evaded the responsibility normally applied for publishers. This really has to change for all our sakes.

Modern 'capitalism' is now largely based on information, not production of goods.

FWIW Once I became a lecturer and was 'paid by the people' I decided to do more than lecture. So started the 'Scots Guide to Electronics' to *give away* what information I could. Since then a large part of what I've written either goes onto the web or went into a magazine that was for 'enthusiasts' and didn't pay me. However, yes, if a magazine was published for profit, I expect to get paid... and then use the fact that I was OK financially to write more for free.

Its one reason I don't use FarceBook, etc. I object to them operating a walled garden using my info as bait. But prefer anyone interested to get it *without* my finding out who they are and what shoe size they take - or helping FarceBook to know.

 

[Tony L]

In effect, companies like FarceBook are international quasi-monopolies. We work for them by giving them our information.

Modern 'capitalism' is now largely based on information, not production of goods.

They also move a lot of people forward, e.g. many small businesses now exist entirely within environments such as Facebook, Amazon Marketplace, eBay etc thus lifting a lot of people out of a situation where they’d otherwise have to be in some crappy chump employee role or losing countless thousands trying to setup on the local high st. As someone who has absolutely hated working for others in the past I can see real positives here. It is a way to work in a far more independent way than existed back when I was failing at creating businesses on almost a monthly basis! I’d have absolutely killed for that sort of marketing platform rather than sticking listings in the back of Record Collector or whatever.

I really don’t have issues with the concept and success of these companies, I’d just like to see them pay their way tax-wise and be rather better moderated. The idea is fine IMO.

I do accept several of your points about monopolies, though with an ex-muso and computing background I do have very strong views on copyright, intellectual property etc and fundamentally believe one should be able to monetise good ideas should one wish to. Living from one’s ideas is a far, far better life than living from selling labour IMHO. In fact I think selling labour is the thing I have most tried to avoid doing all of my life!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

They also move a lot of people forward, e.g. many small businesses now exist entirely within environments such as Facebook, Amazon Marketplace, eBay etc thus lifting a lot of people out of a situation where they’d otherwise have to be in some crappy chump employee role or losing countless thousands trying to setup on the local high st.

I do accept several of your points about monopolies, though with an ex-muso and computing background I do have very strong views on copyright, intellectual property etc and fundamentally believe one should be able to monetise good ideas should one wish to.

WRT your first point above: Yes. But an open sourced system could do the same, *without* the unwanted ability of a 'big brother' snooping and selling info on you to someone else out of your sight or control.

WRT your second: I also have strong views given that I've written books and articles for money and expected to be paid, and for any 'pirate' copies to be prevented. However again, this depends on the details. I think that in many ways the scope of IPR is now *way* too wide. As a result *companies* suck up IPR and act in ways that are *deletorious* to the original creators of a 'work'. e.g. Big music companies who keep some recordings 'in the vault' because they might distract sales of a newer work they can milk. Thus denying musicians an income and reputation as well as denying the rest of us a chance to hear them.

So as with 'capitalism' IPR is a matter of devils in the details and the exploitation of *companies* who keep it to themself, not the creators of the material IPR 'protects'.

Thus, just as I think *you* should control who a company allows to see your FarceBook 'data', I think the creator of IPR should be able to demand a company "fish or cut bait" and take back the IPR of work which isn't being made available.

Think also of all the useful audio info in magazines published decades ago that almost no-one now can read. That is unfair on the authors as well as those who'd like to read it now and would benefit from doing so. Yet all too often a publisher/mag ceases and no-one even knows who to *ask* about the copyright. This situation really should be unacceptable. Not the norm.