The FCC Should Regulate Facebook Like AIM

[Megalith]

Sixteen years ago, the government stopped AOL from building a closed system where everyone had to use AIM, meaning it had to adopt interoperability. The decision provides a blueprint for how the government could similarly regulate today's gigantic internet platforms: many see Facebook—with its over 2 billion monthly users—as having egregious control over our relationships on the internet. If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge.

Trying to build a competitor to Facebook in 2017 is "just insane, it doesn't make any sense," said Stoller, who is writing book on the history of monopoly power in the twentieth century. "It would be like starting a competitor to your local water company." The FCC's decision freed other companies to build new, better instant-messaging apps without AOL standing in their way. And frankly, AIM wasn't able to keep up with them. If Facebook were to actually compete in the market, it might die too. And in its place, something better, or at least different, could emerge.

 

[niconx]

It's not like YouTube is selectively enforcing vague rules to promote corporate content creators and suppress independent creators. That's definitely 100% not happening at all.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I'd prefer comprehensive privacy legislation, something like the following:

- Only the minimum amount of user data needed to make a service function may be collected, without explicit user consent.

- All sharing of data must be opt-in, not opt out. The settings with the highest privacy must always be the default settings.

- Data may never be shared with a third party or used for any other purpose than making the service function (e.g. monetizing) without explicit user consent.

- Services and features may not be either withheld or billed at a different rate if a user does not opt in to share their data and allow it to be monetized.

- All previously collected data on any individual not in accordance with the above, must be wiped within 3 months of the passing of this rule.

- Any violation will be fined at no less than $10 per day per database entry until brought into compliance.

I'm aware this would essentially kill the social media industry, and that is too bad, but this playing fast and loose with privacy must end.

 

[nilepez]

I'd prefer comprehensive privacy legislation, something like the following:
- Only the minimum amount of user data needed to make a service function may be collected, without explicit user consent.
- All sharing of data must be opt-in, not opt out. The settings with the highest privacy must always be the default settings.
- Data may never be shared with a third party or used for any other purpose than making the service function (e.g. monetizing) without explicit user consent.
- Services and features may not be either withheld or billed at a different rate if a user does not opt in to share their data and allow it to be monetized.
- All previously collected data on any individual not in accordance with the above, must be wiped within 3 months of the passing of this rule.
- Any violation will be fined at no less than $10 per day per database entry until brought into compliance.
I'm aware this would essentially kill the social media industry, and that is too bad, but this playing fast and loose with privacy must end.

That'd require a subscription service. I can see not allowing non-anonymized data, but beyond that it's not going to happen. If you don't like how it works, don't use FB or only stay logged in while you're using it and wipe all cookies and turn off all FB javascript each time you log out. Few will do that, because it's pretty inconvenient (trust me I use to do it), but that's your choice. I'd be far more concerned with their ability to manipulate end users than I am about them using my data to advertise to me. Especially when I consider how horrible they are at targeting ads towards me. I end up blocking ads all the time, because they are of no interest to me.

 

[tetris42]

I'm aware this would essentially kill the social media industry, and that is too bad

They have lots of money, therefore, what you're asking is impossible.

 

[Spidey329]

They have lots of money, therefore, what you're asking is impossible.

Ahh yes, the "if you want to enact change write buy your congressman" portion of our government.

 

[c_porter]

If you don't like how it works, don't use FB or only stay logged in while you're using it and wipe all cookies and turn off all FB javascript each time you log out. Few will do that, because it's pretty inconvenient (trust me I use to do it), but that's your choice.

This, exactly. Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't (albeit for other reasons) and my life is just fine.

What if I want to trade privacy for some service? That's my business, not yours. Zarathustra is just saying "there are trades I wouldn't make, so nobody else should be allowed to make them either. And if they try we'll lock them in cages."

 

[Exavior]

I am confused, what exactly is facebook doing to keep any other site from existing?

AOL which at the time was what many people used to get on the internet was told that they could not prevent access to another apps, IE neutrality was a thing then. They were out right preventing you from using anything else. It would be like Comcast being told that they can't block you from using Netflix. How is facebook preventing people from using snapchat or Instagram which is what most younger people now use as their social media platform of choice? Sure Facebook has the larger user base, but they are not doing anything that prevents you from starting your own company or preventing people from moving on.

 

[jedijeb13]

This, exactly. Don't like it? Don't use it. I don't (albeit for other reasons) and my life is just fine.

What if I want to trade privacy for some service? That's my business, not yours. Zarathustra is just saying "there are trades I wouldn't make, so nobody else should be allowed to make them either. And if they try we'll lock them in cages."

Actually what Zarathustra is saying is that if you want to make that trade you just have to opt in. He did not say that no one could make that decision, just that it should not be forced on us.

I would look at that as more or less an "Internet Users Bill of Rights" which would limit companies power over their users the same way the Bill of Rights limits the U.S. Government's power over its citizens. If you think of it, without our Bill of Rights the government would no doubt be taking advantage of the citizens of this country, and every day some of those rights are being eaten away. This is one place where the government should step in and regulate companies which are slowly gaining power that matches the power of the government itself.

Things like Facebook have become a ubiquitous tool which so many people depend on it would be easy for such companies to take advantage of the users. Imagine if the power company told us that we had to give them access to all of our personal records or we could not have electricity. How may people would do without electricity just to maintain their privacy? Personally I don't have FB or Twitter or any of those other services, this forum and Cloudy Nights astronomy forum are about as close to social media use as I get. If either began to require more personal information to be shared I would probably not use them anymore. On the other hand, if the power company made that request, it would be a very difficult decision to allow them to have access to the information, but to live without electricity would be very difficult. Big companies are not necessarily evil nor plan to do evil things with the information they collect, but just as recently experienced with Experian, bad things can happen even when intentions are good.

 

[nilepez]

Actually what Zarathustra is saying is that if you want to make that trade you just have to opt in. He did not say that no one could make that decision, just that it should not be forced on us.
[/quote[

If you use the service, you're opting in. If you want to opt out, don't use the service. Now maybe they should send./show you a TOS tha'ts easy to understand/read (i.e. not like every TOS we currently get) when you sign up and maybe send it again once/year, but opting out = not using the service (or paying them an annual fee).

 

[westrock2000]

They make it sound like Facebook was some radical new creation.

Anybody know the name of the guy who made Myspace? I don't. But it was kind of a big deal at the time. Like the biggest deal in Internet land.

AIM? ICQ? A/S/L???

 

[westrock2000]

Groupon declined a $6 Billion offer once. Once.

These things come and go.

 

[Exavior]

They make it sound like Facebook was some radical new creation.

Anybody know the name of the guy who made Myspace? I don't. But it was kind of a big deal at the time. Like the biggest deal in Internet land.

AIM? ICQ? A/S/L???

what do you mean Tom was automatically your friend when you made a Myspace account.

 

[Jagger100]

Groupon declined a $6 Billion offer once. Once.

These things come and go.

Myspace was still a growth phase for the internet. The people who made fun of people that wasted their lives 'surfing the net' on their computer got smartphones and 'surfing the net' was suddenly not a problem. Growth phase is over for North America. During a growth phase things come and go. Now we're in a considation phase followed by stagnation unless the government chooses to intervene.

 

[westrock2000]

what do you mean Tom was automatically your friend when you made a Myspace account.

Wait, that was a real person? I had no idea.

 

[nilepez]

They make it sound like Facebook was some radical new creation.

Anybody know the name of the guy who made Myspace? I don't. But it was kind of a big deal at the time. Like the biggest deal in Internet land.

AIM? ICQ? A/S/L???

Facebook isn't going anywhere. They're huge and their product is sticky. Google tried to get a piece of the pie and failed miserably.

Wait, that was a real person? I had no idea.

He is. Tom is also on Facebook: https://www.google.com/search?q=tom+on+facebook&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 with over a million followers (I'm not one of them)

 

[Ur_Mom]

I don't think they should have interfered with AIM, either. I don't like AOL or Facebook (I used both, and still use Facebook). But, there are other things with Facebook that need someone to look at. Privacy is a huge one.

Of course, with all the data breaches, Facebook, other social media, etc., I am pretty much going under the impression that absolutely nothing is considered "private" anymore. For the right price, you could get all the info out there on someone.

But, being locked into Facebook's "ecosystem" and not leaving room for competitors? Nah. They aren't a monopoly or even close. They can do their own thing and others can do their own thing. You can not use Facebook and still get along just fine.

 

[RanceJustice]

Zarathustra is absolutely right and saved me from typing out a lot of stuff, so..thanks.

We need to pull back from the privacy-oblieration policies that modern Internet sites and services are adopting and frankly, we can't expect "markets" to be the causal change - its simply too profitable to be a "bad guy" (like in many other unscrupulous industries like finance, telecom, military-industrial-complex, Walmart, etc). The only option here is for government to implement protections for the benefit of the people, letting these businesses know that you simply can't do whatever you want, fuck the consequences, because its profitable. Businesses whining "but you'll kill our profits/business model" should be met the same as it was when that profitable business model was "slavery" or "dumping mining waste unfiltered into the lake" - "Tough shit. Adapt and evolve, and at least know that nobody else in the market can benefit from the cheap, disastrous way anymore either". Zarathustra has some good places to start and these need to be implemented regardless of public or private entities are involved. However, special protections and scrutiny need to be accessed on those that are either close to monopolies or have an obscene amount of control/presence - the Facebooks, Twitters, Googles etc...because their massive presence is a force multiplier - for good or for ill.

There are other rules that should be put into play to govern special circumstances - for instance, people are being turned down for a job because they don't have a Facebook and/or won't friend their potential employer. Likewise, public figures like politicians are using Facebook and Twitter as primary platforms for public business (like the Twit-In-Chief) so they should not be able to act like petulant teenagers and block people they don't like/don't share their views/criticize them as if it was a private page from a private figure - there are already court cases in the works for this sort of thing, with officials blocking critical constituents. A good way to put an end to this is to say, require that when possible (ie in most cases) when public money is spent in the case of code or online services, it must be in as open (source, protocol, interoperability ) as possible. Some other nations are starting to implement this sort of thing with some degree of success - such as where various EU nation local gov'ts have transitioned to Linux and when there is code written on the public dollar, it is made available to the public. This would also have the secondary effect of strengthening the already existing (and future) alternatives which are more privacy respecting, secure, and viable, such as the social networks Diaspora, Gnusocial, Buddycloud, and others which are free and open source, federated, and designed better for privacy. The EU is also implementing a new privacy bill which will go into effect next year and from what I hear will put a stop to "business as usual" in the data mining and advertising industries; a good start.

Ultimately, our laws should focus first on protection of the communal public good through respect for the most individual good and when it comes to the Internet, that means that personal rights and privacy should not be subjugated to corporate entities attempting to centralize power, control, or profit.

 

[c_porter]

Actually what Zarathustra is saying is that if you want to make that trade you just have to opt in. He did not say that no one could make that decision, just that it should not be forced on us.

It is never forced on you. You are not required by law to have social media accounts. Nobody will shoot you or lock you in a cage if you use or don't use those services. So...precisely the opposite of Zarathustra's proposal.

And no, he's not saying if you want to make the trade you have to opt in. He specifically said you it should be illegal to charge a different rate to people or provide different services based on info settings.Which means I have to pay the rate that's financially feasible for a no-info user. Sure, I can share more info if I want *but not as consideration, payment, or for the purposes of enabling more useful features to me*.

Aditionally, he admitted this would kill social media services, which are clearly providing benefit to people today or they wouldn't use them. His position is plainly that nobody should be allowed to make an agreement he himself would not make. It's ridiculous.

 

[Jagger100]

Likewise, public figures like politicians are using Facebook and Twitter as primary platforms for public business (like the Twit-In-Chief) so they should not be able to act like petulant teenagers and block people they don't like/don't share their views/criticize them as if it was a private page from a private figure - there are already court cases in the works for this sort of thing, with officials blocking critical constituents.

This issue has nothing to do with OP. But keep in mind the corporate Media we have now who have embarrassed themselves with the evidenceless "nothing-burger" Russian conspiracy and tries to put a negative light on everything he does. I'm glad he has an avenue to speak to the Public without a corporate layer with an agenda filtering it. Does he act like a baffoon, yes. So. Atleast to this point he hasn't bombed a stable country into a warlord torn shithole, despite being under incredible pressure to do so. He's doing better than the last 3 presidents so far.