Facebook insider testimony is valuable, but Congress should not make policy based on a former Facebook exec's recommendations any more than they would regulate cigarettes by listening to Big Tobacco. On Section 230, they should solicit testimony from what's left of the open web
-
Show this thread
-
The content of the whistleblowing so far has been the same critique that's been directed at Facebook by outside observers for many years. It's neither a story about evil monopolies or an evil CEO, but how we choose to embed ubiquitous communication and surveillance into our lives
1 reply 7 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
This is a vital area for regulation, but previous efforts like the GDPR or the European cookie law show how important it is to get your thinking right if you don't want to make things worse. That requires expanding the conversation beyond a morality play about corporate greed.
2 replies 4 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
It seems like the easiest/least ideological regulatory path would be mandating users' ability to transfer/migrate their data between platforms of their choosing. It would be hell for some of the biggest actors' models, but wouldn't (necessarily) decay into grand morality debates
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's been done already, and it doesn't even work conceptually, let alone in practice. Number one, it's pointless when there's one platform. Number two, most social data doesn't cleanly belong to any one person. We don't need a morality debate, but we do need a civics debate.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.