Maybe we need a moral panic about Facebook
maxread.substack.com
maxread.substack.com
This is the 2016 Facebook panic all over again, but with fewer Russians. You’d think the storyline would get old, but no…
There's almost nothing novel in the leaked Facebook docs, other than confirmation of Facebook's slowing growth and aging userbase.
Everything being discussed now was being discussed years ago. There were whole chapters in Chaos Monkeys about it. Big whoop.
As for why this is getting nonstop coverage:
Aside from mere anti-FB animus, the aesthetics of all this--a compelling whistleblower, leaked docs, internal discussions of (known) tradeoffs--plays precisely into the necessary Aaron Sorkin drama and regnant journalist epistemology.
The Rupert Murdochs still have some of their (paid) sympathizers in government, which is the only reason the Rupert Murdochs have any appearance of potential future viability.
I, probably like most HNers, like neither the Rupert Murdochs nor the Mark Zuckerbergs, but I don't know what to do in opposition to them, other than avoid their services - which I already do.
Lobby government for greater personal privacy protections? Hahahahaha, ALL Western Governments are going in the opposite direction because Facebook opened that door to show the world that 'the people' don't care about privacy. The Rupert Murdochs are also coming (a decade late) to the private data party, and Governments already have cozy relationships with them, so they'd be shooting themselves in the foot to put up any resistance to "gathering all the datas", making any opposition to Facebook's internal decisions laughably hypocritical - but only to those who already know or care (a vast VAST minority).
Confirmation matters. A lot of people here and elsewhere (but especially here) have trouble distinguishing between their own opinion and absolute truth, between suspicions and proof, but that difference does exist and it does matter. Suspicions have been superseded by evidence.
At one time, not so very long ago either, it was still possible to believe in the possibility of positive change from within Facebook. The documents that have leaked are filled with the voices of people who believed that, who acted on that belief, who worked hard and suffered hardship trying to make a difference. But now, with this evidence before us, it's no longer possible to think that battle is winnable. Confirmation like this drastically changes the moral situation for anyone who's still there.
Even in hockey trash talk groups everyone is getting 30 day bans within a week or two of their last ban.
Not sure what the moral panic is all about, no one really cares what FB does with our posts it’s more about people calling your work because you trashed their team. Mostly everyone is looking for another platform where we can post memes without getting banned.
I wonder if the Constitution could be amended to grant the US Congress the power to "impeach" and indict any US citizen or legal entity for any reason whatsoever. Congress already has the power to prosecute the President and remove him, but this power doesn't extend beyond the Oval Office. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the idea that Congress should be able to prosecute and punish US citizens, by way of fine, prison time, or another punishment, for actions that do not technically breach an existing law but which nonetheless run afoul of morals, ethics, or common decency, is worth pondering.
I won't hide that I desperately want to see Mark Zuckerberg serve hard prison time for everything he's done.
Obviously, the constitution could be amended to grant Congress the power to issue bills of attainder, rather than forbidden from doing so. I’d argue very very strongly against doing so.
I think some exceptional situations should warrant a similar treatment.
This seems badly mistaken to me on two counts:
- Congress doesn't appropriate itself the powers. The Constitution assigns those powers to Congress.
- The powers and privileges of Congress, in the case of Presidential Impeachment aren't so much "judge, jury, and executioner" as much as they are "HR representative making a firing decision". Presidential Impeachment removes the President from Office, but it does not "execute" them, "put them in jail", or even attach any civil or criminal penalties to them. Less "executioner" and more "firing manager".
Consider the implications of what you've said here.
Punishment outside of law breaks all kinds of long-developed social and democratic safeguards. It's one of those "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"[0] type situations.