
Shut down social media platforms, ex-Facebook adviser urges - fbelzile
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-grand-committee-tuesday-1.5152436
======
mindgam3
I agree with McNamee's message, but he's grandstanding a bit too much here
relative to his actual intentions.

1\. I had the opportunity to hear him speak at Stanford in April and I asked
him straight up why he isn't calling for Zuckerberg to resign given all his
critiques of the company's policies and leadership. His answer was, "he's my
friend". I don't know, that seems like a weak response from someone making
regular headlines while building a personal brand as an anti-Facebook
crusader.

2\. He also still holds Facebook shares, which he acknowledges makes him "not
the best messenger" [direct quote] for his FB morality play. His justification
for holding on to his shares is [paraphrasing his words] "if I sold my shares
I would be profiting immensely from Facebook while I criticize them, which
would be weird." This is just such a bad argument. If he was really concerned
about Facebook money being "dirty" he could simply donate it to any number of
charities. Problem solved.

My problem is that he seems to be profiting from playing both sides of the
Facebook game simultaneously. Just pick a side already.

~~~
whatshisface
I would love if my harshest critic was my friend. In fact, I would support any
friend who decided to become a leader among my critics.

~~~
kadendogthing
You would love it because you know it in practice doesn't do anything. Human
nature dictates this. If they actually acted on their critiques you wouldn't
be friends for long. We all do this to varying degrees in our personal and
professional lives.

Which is fundamentally why he gave the "he's my friend" answer. He disagrees
with what's being done, but he himself won't do anything to negate what his
friend is doing.

~~~
mindgam3
Okay, but human nature goes both ways. There’s all the messed up stuff, and
also occasional bouts of doing the right thing, sometimes with a little help
from your friends.

I believe the parent commenter is speaking to our “higher nature” for lack of
a better term. It’s a bit cynical to assume that this doesn’t exist, and
possibly a tad inappropriate to assume that the commenter shares your cynicism
and is coming from the same place.

~~~
kadendogthing
>and possibly a tad inappropriate to assume that the commenter shares your
cynicism and is coming from the same place.

Your ascribed motivations to my outlook on this matter are not appreciated.

It is plenty sufficient to look at his actions and statement together. He
plainly told you in no uncertain terms that he's not going to do anything
about it, when asked about what he is doing, because he is Mark's friend. This
is pretty standard human behavior, and it's why we have a whole host of laws
and ethics regulations attempting to correct for it in both private and public
organizations. That's not cynical, that's looking at known human behaviors and
being practical about it.

Try to avoid shaming platitudes in what otherwise was a pretty vanilla rehash
on what the guy directly said.

~~~
mindgam3
I don't think you understand my comment. If you are cynical about McNamee, I
am in full agreement. But that's not what you appeared to be critiquing in
your original comment.

> You would love it because you know it in practice doesn't do anything.

Seems fair to assume that this is in response to the parent comment "I would
love if my harshest critic was my friend."

~~~
kadendogthing
> Human nature dictates this.

> This is pretty standard human behavior, and it's why we have a whole host of
> laws and ethics regulations attempting to correct for it in both private and
> public organizations. That's not cynical, that's looking at known human
> behaviors and being practical about it.

------
mc32
It seems people want to eat their cake and have it too.

Close down FB. Why? Because they provide a platform to all ideas, noble, vile
and in between. But we want to democratize the internet and give people a
voice (but only those voices we at the moment approve of). But big media wants
preeminence and don’t want to be usurped by diffused news sources. Who’ll
establish lockstep narratives?

FB should become a platform. I don’t see it working as an impartial moderator
of what’s right. I don’t see it working ala Wikipedia federation. The only way
I see it working is devolving moderation to groups similar to Reddit or
Flickr. Also have basic enforcement of local national laws (depending where
the group is from) so if you’re from Russia but venture into s US group, don’t
complain and vice versa.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Close down FB. Why?_

Because they violated a lawful summons. Sovereign Parliaments in multiple
countries issued summons to Facebook for Zuckerberg and Sandberg. Multiple
times, they pulled a bait and switch. In the United States, this would be like
blowing off Congress and then one’s contempt hearing in court.

> _FB should become a platform_

What does this mean? And what does a democracy do when Facebook refuses to
show up to provide critical information for that discussion?

Blocking Facebook is extreme. Large financial penalties, and possibly criminal
proceedings against Zuckerberg and Sanders for wilfully evading summons, are
more apt. But the need for something to be done in reaction to such brazen
lawlessness seems necessary. And keeping all lawful options on the table when
considering a response is prudent.

~~~
Skunkleton
Don't forget the filter bubble. This is probably one of the most harmful
aspects of modern media consumption.

~~~
fullshark
The bell has been rung. If FB shut down tomorrow another filter bubble would
take its place. It’s what news consumers, in particular politics junkies,
want.

~~~
groby_b
But... they don't.

It is, however, what _advertisers_ want. Because "enragement", "stickiness",
etc.

It is merely what consumers fall for.

~~~
pwinnski
I suspect you meant "engagement," but "enragement" does seem accurate!

~~~
Qwertystop
Both! Angry people get engaged so that they can tell you they're mad.

------
LordHumungous
The left has become muddled in its messaging these days. They see crisis and
imminent calamity everywhere, but they can't articulate a clear rationale for
why drastic action, like shutting down FB, should be undertaken, or what
concrete goals they hope to achieve by doing it. All that is known for sure is
that Facebook is the target du jour, and therefore calling for drastic action
is a sure way to get media attention and clicks.

~~~
bluntfang
this sounds like the same tired propaganda from the occupy wallstreet protest.
if you can't find clear rationale you are purposely not looking.

------
chr1
There is a simple reason why governments can't 'Call their bluff', because
they are the ones bluffing. They brag about representing 400 million people,
but in fact they are mostly corrupt bureaucrats who take money from various
lobbyists and were elected simply as the lesser evil.

Facebook, despite its many flaws, is genuinely useful to many people, and
governments can't simply shut down useful things, no matter how much they'd
like to control communications. So governments even in semi-democratic
countries have to carefully construct their lies, before they try to shut down
a widely used site.

------
cs702
Roger McNamee is not an idiot. Among his many accomplishments, he was an early
Facebook backer.[a] He would not be recommending a shutdown of social media
platforms without giving serious thought to the matter. Among the things he
said, this passage stands out for me:

 _> [Social medial platforms] are the products of an American business culture
with few rules, where misbehaviour seldom results in punishment. Smart people
take what they can get and tell themselves they earned it. They feel entitled.
Consequences are someone else's problem.

At the end of the day, though, the most effective path to reform would be to
shut down the platforms at least temporarily. ... Any country can go first.
The platforms have left you no choice. The time has come to call their bluff.

Companies with responsible business models will emerge overnight to fill the
void._

[a]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_McNamee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_McNamee)

~~~
nradov
The idea of banning social media platforms is so ridiculous as to be _prima
facie_ evidence of idiocy. There's just no way to do it, at least not in a
civilized country which respects human rights and the rule of law.

~~~
Nasrudith
Well to be fair he could be malicious instead of stupid.

Facebook itself can go die in a dumpster fire as far as I care but it should
be a natrual death - not one pushed by demagogues and old media interests
transparently interested in forcing control to consolidate their power.

------
ummwhat
He's right. China banned Facebook and no one is accusing Russia of hacking
their elections. Clearly banning Facebook is the path forward for democracy
and civil liberties. clearly.

~~~
RodgerTheGreat
A narrative in which any punishment leveled at Facebook is construed as an
assault on free speech and civil liberty is _very_ convenient for Facebook.

Fining an automotive company that makes unsafe cars is not attacking personal
freedom of movement. Fining hospitals that are unsanitary is not attacking
your reproductive rights. Shutting down a bank that commits fraud is not an
attack on free enterprise.

Facebook isn't a pillar of democracy; it's a for-profit business that inserts
itself as a middle-man in human communication.

~~~
joe_the_user
_A narrative in which any punishment leveled at Facebook is construed as an
assault on free speech and civil liberty is _very_ convenient for Facebook._

Certainly it's convenient for Facebook. Does that prove it's not true?

 _Fining an automotive company that makes unsafe cars is not attacking
personal freedom of movement._

Uh, you know publishers, even crappy publishers, have been protected
historically in a different fashion than other sorts of industries.
Historically, the concept of freedom of expression has generally been for the
protection of what some people might consider "unsafe books". The production
of an unsafe automobile isn't considered an example of "protected expression"
but the production of an essay, book or other "container idea" is considered
protected (with specific exceptions, of course).

 _Facebook isn 't a pillar of democracy._

Free speech is seldom about protecting the expression ideas everyone likes -
those usually don't need protection. Free speech is about prevent the state,
in particular, from suppressing "bad", "wrong", "unpatriotic" etc ideas,
because those are the targets of suppression.

And the pillars of democracy are those lawyers and judges that defend free
speech, not the completely random assortment of people, some terrible, who
_practice_ freedom speech.

 _...it 's a for-profit business that inserts itself as a middle-man in human
communication._

Those publishers who've been sued and defend their right to publish various
banned in the US (such as those of Henry Miller) were also for-profit
businesses inserting themselves as middle-men in human communication. If we're
living in a capitalist society, expression is going to require middle-men of
one sort or another so suppressing these is going to be effectively
suppressing free expression.

~~~
mindslight
> _If we 're living in a capitalist society, expression is going to require
> middle-men of one sort or another so suppressing these is going to be
> effectively suppressing free expression._

Only because of this naive bare-minimum protocol stack of HTTP/DNS, which
discourages users from owning their own identities, pushing all traffic to
centralizing servers. A decade old phone has enough computing power to serve
the majority of users' personal communication needs.

Ultimately centralized "social media" can only turn out to be yet another
populist dumpster fire, ending up in the same state as the nightly newses,
nytimes, etc - overwhelming sources of straight up government propaganda . The
revolution will not be televised, and this still applies even when the TV has
become a javascript browser.

This entire issue is essentially just debating between supporting a rock or a
hard place, wherein actually they both suck. We're in this position purely
because _we the people_ allowed the surveillance companies way too much trust,
and the only way out is to move past them.

------
anbop
One thing that’s important to do in a discussion of regulating Facebook is to
separate the conversation from personal evaluations of its founders and
managers. A person does not need to be evil or even ill-intentioned to invent
something destructive. Paul Müller wasn’t trying to hurt anyone when he
discovered the pesticidal properties of DDT, and his Nobel Prize can be
considered well-deserved. That shouldn’t stop us from evaluating the invention
on its own merit, deciding to regulate or ban it, and doing so without any
malice towards Müller, regardless of whether he is on our side or defensive of
his invention. The invention is bigger than and separate from the inventor.

------
JohnFen
I have to agree. Those companies operate as if they're untouchable. Nothing
will improve with them unless they actually feel the cold winds of risk.

------
jdc
_> Google and Microsoft also announced that they support a Canadian initiative
to protect the integrity of the election this fall — including removing hoax
accounts and fake content._

Yes! Now let's get all the other media companies onboard!

------
rchaud
> Potts tried to excuse their absence by saying he was "not familiar with the
> procedures of Canadian Parliament and what requires an appearance."

The Global Policy Director of FB, with the head of Canadian public policy in
tow, actually made this statement. It insults the intelligence of everyone at
that hearing.

At this point, one can only assume that these absurd excuses are fully
intentional. They are counting on Western governments's fears of being branded
"censors" being too great for them to take any action besides "well, we
tried".

------
drivingmenuts
I invite them to try it and see just how much merry hell the users raise.
Facebook (which is what this is really all about) is based in the US snd while
it might be possible to curtail their activity, shutting FB down is just not
possible without throwing out the 1st Amendment.

That's not to say it wouldn't suck for FB, but FB doesn't have to have an
active presence in every country to still serve those countries. All things
considered, FB itself would have a hard time preventing users from unserved
countries from using it's platform.

------
TheOperator
It absolutely is and should be an option to just shut down the damn sites. We
already know they have a generally negative impact on society. Why do we need
them? Relative to its size Facebook's platform really doesn't do anything that
we would miss besides perhaps Birthday reminders.

I would however be keen to leave the messaging platforms open to avoid
disrupting communication too severely. I also see some potential unintended
consequences.

~~~
EpicEng
Even if we assume that your premise is correct, under what authority do we
shut them down and how do we ensure this new power won't be abused in the
future?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _under what authority do we shut them down and how do we ensure this new
> power won 't be abused in the future?_

Parliaments are sovereign. Facebook violated a lawful summons by pulling a
bait and switch:

“McNamee's comments came as an international committee of MPs in Ottawa
renewed their summons for Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg and company COO
Sheryl Sandberg to appear and give evidence before them. Both ignored the
first summons, choosing to send company representatives in their place.”

~~~
EpicEng
It's not a question of whether or not they can be shut down, it's whether or
not they _should_. I'm in the US and am generally of the mind that the power
of government should be limited as much as is reasonable in order to protect
people's freedoms in the future. There is a very real danger in proposing one-
off 'fixes' for every ill you see in the world as it sets a precedent which
can be abused down the road.

By your definition numerous media outlets could just be shut down entirely. Is
that really a good thing? Do we trust the government to decide which
information is and is not acceptible for us to consume? I certainly don't.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _it 's whether or not they _should__

I personally don't think they should be shut down. (Fines and potentially
criminal proceedings, under contempt laws, for Zuckerberg and Sandberg would
make more sense.) But they should face _some_ consequences. Keeping all lawful
options on the table is a good negotiating strategy.

With respect to metastasisation, that is a concern. But fortunately there
isn't a rich history of lawful companies blowing off multiple countries'
Parliaments. The one-offness of the situation isn't in countries reacting, but
in how complacent they've been with it all.

------
ForHackernews
Just nationalize them. When was the last time Facebook introduced a great new
feature that users liked, as opposed to some garbage adtech "innovation"?

------
faissaloo
Rather than shutting down social media platforms, shut down the conditions
that allow them to be. Bring modern capitalism to its knees and you will
prevent another Facebook.

------
wrong_variable
Traditional media is extremely salty over their lose of control in "opinion
making" and creating consensus.

Dont get me wrong, FB is not much better, but at least it's much more open and
direct then traditional media.

Russia had very little to do with DJTJ, EVERY country tries to influence
election in other countries.

Whenever there is an election anywhere in the world. Traditional media in the
US fill the airwave with opinion making - both domestically and in foreign
press.

This is why so many countries are skeptical of allowing US media to operate
freely within their borders.

Both FB and traditional media have big agendas, but FB's agenda of selling ads
is much more benign then whatever the state department wants.

~~~
JohnFen
> FB's agenda of selling ads is much more benign then whatever the state
> department wants.

I disagree with this, actually. Facebook's agenda of selling ads is the very
thing that makes them toxic -- not because selling ads is a terrible thing,
but because Facebook is so insistent on using people's personal data to do it.

