
24 year old student lights match: Europe versus Facebook - Natsu
http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1201
======
count
Maybe it's my unenlightened American perspective coming out here, but why is
this a big deal?

You chose to use the Facebook service, you chose to provide this information
to them, and you chose to agree to their terms of service.

Facebook isn't a government agency, it's a private organization that has
persuaded people to give it armloads of data about themselves, and uses that
for whatever _completely legal_ purposes it so desires. It's not like they are
taking out credit card applications or anything on behalf of these users.

What is it about this _completely voluntary_ relationship that is so
inherently evil? I really don't get the harsh kickbacks and complaints against
things like "Facebook keeps records of pokes even if the user 'removes' them".
So what? How is that something that is litigation or 'outcry' worthy?

How much of this data is just persistent in the system because they operate at
a scale where data deletion or removal just _cannot_ feasibly be
accomplished[1]? Much like google - 'we dont delete anything'. Why should they
legally or otherwise be _required_ to verify something is actually deleted,
instead of simply ensuring it's inaccessible in their system? Why is nobody
complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the file space when
you delete something, and instead just 'marking it deleted' or 'removing the
pointer in the inode'? How is that fundamentally any different at all?

Please, educate me, because I really don't get it.

~~~
sek
Bullshit, it is not "completely voluntary". When everyone is using a
communication service and there is no alternative. They claim to have a
billion users.

Short it is a monopoly, they have a lot of power and when you start to abuse
it, like forcing users to accept your unfair terms of service, the government
comes into play.

I never heard that Google doesn't remove stuff when you remove them inside
your service. They advertise the huge space on Gmail by "never have to delete
anything", that is completely different.

> Why is nobody complaining about NTFS or ext3/4 not actually zeroing out the
> file space?

I normally don't reply to such a stupid argument, but i have a related video:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SCZzgfdTBo#t=3m20s>

~~~
Travisism
It is 100% completely voluntary. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook. It is
not even remotely close to the only communication service. I don't personally
use Facebook and have no problem leading an active social and business life.
Sure, a large portion of my friends use Facebook, but they also make phone
calls, send text messages, email (through multiple different services),
LinkedIn, Flickr, etc etc etc.

So how does Facebook have no alternatives?

If you don't like the product, or you don't like the way its run, or you don't
like the way it handles your data, or you don't like the color of the log in
button, then its simple. Don't use it.

As the original poster said, it is a private organization, and therefore you
have a choice. This isn't social security, this isn't taxes. I can (and don't)
use Facebook, but much to my dismay, I still pay my outrageous taxes.

This weeks' Monopoly is last weeks' MySpace when users choose to go elsewhere.

~~~
bitops
Perhaps true in the US but not so in Europe. My 16-year old cousin in Denmark
(the worlds most FB connected country in the world, 3M users out of 5M
population) told me that it's basically impossible to have a social life
without being on Facebook (at her age).

Facebook also caters very much to US culture. E.g. In middle school and high
school you move between different classrooms so you make lots of different
friends that way. In Denmark you sit with the same 20-30 kids every day for 10
years. It's a very different type of social conditioning.

So - if you're the outlier in the class who isn't connected and the party
invites go out on FB, guess what? You have volunteered to get ostracized.

~~~
jamesgeck0
You realize that in no way does this make Facebook registration non-voluntary.

~~~
bitops
Of course, signing up for Facebook is completely voluntary in a legal sense.
No-one can strong-arm you into creating an account.

My point is that social pressure can often make people do things that they
don't really want to do. And sadly, many people do not have the courage to
stand up to their peers and tell them no.

It's more common in US culture to do that, and largely encouraged by US
societal norms, but that isn't always the case in other cultures. This is
based on my experience growing up outside of the US (and also spending time in
high school and college in the US).

------
ckinniburgh
There are a few comments here questioning why it's really important to
actually delete data. This is a serious issue for a few different reasons. If
I believe that I've deleted something, then there should be no way for anyone
to retrieve the information -- I no longer have to worry about security
breaches at Facebook (internally or externally), Government warrants, or
Facebook accidentally reinstating the information.

As for the idea that Facebook is to big to effectively delete information,
that's unacceptable. If you're that big and you can't figure out a way of
routinely deleting data then you need to find a way of collecting more data or
making your data easier to delete, or not giving the user the 'delete' option.
There are a number of alternate verbs which describe the process they are
going through, none of which are as clear or commonly understood as 'delete',
but which are more accurate. 'Hide' and 'make data invisible' come to mind.

I don't have as much of a problem with the saving of messages which others
will also read, but on deleting a Facebook account, this could be handled more
gracefully if the user wishes. This is a more difficult problem to solve,
which would require Facebook itself to store messages with under the covers
public key cryptography which sounds like the type of thing they wouldn't do.

~~~
kisielk
Facebook could make data removable by users if they engineered their site to
allow that. The problem is that they haven't, and it appears they've in fact
done the opposite. We need data protection laws like this to put the onus on
the service providers to make giving users control of their data a priority.

~~~
Lukeas14
Deleting data in a complicated system is not at all a trivial task as data
integrity can easily be impacted. So Facebook's excuse that they can't delete
data at their scale is probably not just PR speak. For them there is no
downside to keeping data besides a minority of their userbase complaining.
Meanwhile the downside to deleting data is potentially huge and a mistake
would be nonrecoverable. I wouldn't expect them to start deleting data anytime
soon unless legally required to do so. I do agree that the verbage used on
their site should more accurately reflect the actions occuring on their
backend.

~~~
kisielk
I agree that deleting data is probably difficult from a data integrity
standpoint. However, unless being able to delete data is made a priority the
situation is not going to improve. It's a more general problem and certainly
not specific to Facebook but unless there is some motivator I don't think a
whole lot of engineering effort is going to be put in to it by anyone.

From a technology standpoint it seems it's more desirable to just keep
throwing storage at the problem and spend time working on ways to store and
manage even more data. Data is valuable after all, so the incentive is there
to accumulate and process as much of it as possible. That's exactly why we
need some form of external stimulus (eg: laws) to force people to work on the
problem of how can we be getting rid of data when we need to without breaking
everything.

------
0x12
I really hope that nobody here is actually surprised that that is the true
purpose of the 'like' button.

After all, the users get just about nothing out of it, if you like something
that much an email will do just as well (to the select number of people that
you think your liking a particular subject will appeal to).

The main winners are the publishers (they hope for some more traffic) and
facebook (by extending your profile, not just by being able to count the
'likes' but also by the lesser value of those sites that you simply visit).

Like buttons and other third party javascript are a huge vector for privacy
violations, basically any website that places any kind of third party
javascript on their pages is giving full control over the privacy of their
users to the party that hosts the javascript component.

If that party also happens to host a service that a large number of people
have signed up for at some point in the past, and that they are possibly
signed in to right this minute the potential for abuse is staggering.

~~~
sek
It was so successful because these useless "Social Media Experts" needed a
metric to justify their job.

Nobody asked the techies if this could be a trojan horse.

------
VladRussian
"So many people applied for their own CDs that Facebook had to send out an
email indicating it was unable to comply with the requirement that it provide
the information within a 40 day period."

Has Facebook considered using benefits of modern technology and delivering the
requested info electronically by, for example, setting up a web site where
users could access/browse/download the requested info and may be even let some
other users, like their friends, to access the info as well?

:)

~~~
mirkules
This is a standard customer service trick - externalize the cost (time) and
minimize business losses (disclosure of data). Make an action difficult enough
to discourage more casual users but stay within the legal limit.

This is why checks take up to 14 business days to clear (to make a quick buck
in those days), why you have to wait 30 minutes on hold "for the next
available representative" (to discourage you calling in), and why most rebates
are mail-in (in hopes that you will forget).

~~~
shabble
I seem to recall (although perhaps folklore) that the GPL condition "[...] by
the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium _customarily used
for software interchange._ " was a response to someone trying to get away with
offering the source as hundreds or thousands of printed pages to discourage
people

------
redthrowaway
In Canada, you should be able to request this information under Section 23 of
the Personal Information Protection Act [1](in BC), or PIPEDA elsewhere.

[1] <http://www.leg.bc.ca/37th4th/3rd_read/gov38-3.htm#section23>

------
nihilocrat
There is a cool German word for companies like Facebook or Google, which
collect mounds of information about their users: _Datenkrake_ :
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datenkrake>

~~~
alexhawket
Is that the modern reference to octopus or the legendary reference to the
mythic kraken sea creature?

~~~
ordinary
The German word for octopus is indeed "Kraken", and looking at the pictures in
the article linked by the GP, I'd bet on the former, rather than the latter.

~~~
loup-vaillant
There's a cultural connotation to the octopus: its tentacles reach everywhere.
So, a likely translation for "Datenkrake" would be something like "data
umbrella". We could also try "Big Data", in reference to "Big Pharma".

------
nfm
I wonder what's in place to prevent you requesting a CD of someone else's
data.

~~~
pyre
At the beginning of the saga, I remember reading something about them
requiring a fax of identifying papers.

------
jritch
I think there’s a few points here and although some replies have very valid
points others completely stray from the issues that "Europe vs facebook" is
making.

1\. Facebook has bases, and operates, in Europe. Thus they MUST abide by our
data laws. This means that, under our European laws they MUST supply ALL
information they have on people. Currently this is not being done and as such
they are breaking the law by not providing ALL information they hold on
people. If they want to have HQ's in Europe and want Europeans to use their
service they must abide by our laws, this is regardless if we as a user decide
to sign up or not. These laws cannot at anytime be waived REGARDLESS if it is
indeed us as Europeans deciding to use their service.

2\. Quite simply, if they offer the option of "deleting" posts/likes/mails,
then they should do just that, delete it. Anything other than this and they
are quite blatantly misleading users.

3\. They SHOULD NOT be gathering information on ANYONE who does not use their
service. This is not legal and should not be allowed to happen. The old saying
"knowledge is power" comes to mind, but these "big corporations" should not be
able to gather data on people who have no connection what-so-ever to their
company/services. Britain recently has been rocked by such scandals as phone
hack etc aswell as the big argument about Google cars collecting data from
wireless networks that they were not authorised to do so from. Is facebook
gather information on people who have no connection to them any different from
hacking someone’s phone and listening to their messages? Or any different from
a Google car passing your home and gathering information for your wireless
network? My opinion is that it isnt any different. New of the world have had
to pay out massive amount of compensation to the people who could prove that
their phones were hacked. It is a breach of privacy and more importantly, THE
LAW. Google also had to agree to delete all information gathered by its Google
cars as this was deemed to be illegally collected.

Facebook should be made to adhere to our laws if they wish to be present in
our countries. Thus they should be made to supply ALL information held on
people who make subject access requests, they should delete all e
mails/post/likes that have been deleted by the original (or any recipicants)
and should also delete ALL information they have gained about people who no
longer/have never used their service.

I joined facebook when it first came out as would say i was pretty young and
naive, I didnt read all the agreements etc and certainly didn’t know what I
was signing myself up for (alot of which has not came out until recently). If
facebook want to use the argument that everyone who signs up agree to their
t&c then they should respect the fact that only peoples over the age of 18
should be allowed to join in Europe. (this is currently not the case with
children as young as 8 and their pet dogs having profiles)....

Facebook cant have it all their own way and must respect the laws of the land,
PERIOD.

~~~
m__
> Facebook has bases, and operates, in Europe. Thus they MUST abide by our
> data laws.

Why? One might argue that European laws MUST be changed. Pointing to laws is
hardly a moral argument, there are tons of terrible laws and facebook might as
well be a victim of one of them.

~~~
ltamake
It's not about morals, it's about the law as it is right now. And the truth is
that Facebook is breaking our laws and need to be prosecuted for such.

As for your argument, why is that a terrible law? Why is it bad that users
have a right to know what companies have on them? To be honest, I think it's a
pretty bloody great law.

Facebook is a victim of itself. If it didn't track users in the first place,
it wouldn't be in hot water.

~~~
m__
> It's not about morals, it's about the law as it is right now. Depends on the
> discussion. I doubt anybody claims that the laws don't obligate facebook to
> make the data available, because they do. What people argue is that said
> laws are bad.

> And the truth is that Facebook is breaking our laws and need to be
> prosecuted for such. That's what we are having an argument about. I agree
> that they are breaking our laws, but I don't think that they should be
> prosecuted. I think the laws should be changed instead, because they are
> bad.

> Why is it bad that users have a right to know what companies have on them?
> Because it isn't the state's business what customers and companies agree
> with each other. If facebook states in its contracts with their customers
> that they will make this data available then they should be prosecuted for
> breach of contract if they don't.

I'm against the state (or the EU or whoever) making laws that deal with
private matters because lawmakers are notoriously bad at thinking things
through _. This leads to a bunch of unintended consequences and ultimately is
bad for both customers and companies and anybody else. E.g.: copyright laws,
patent laws, immigration laws, drug laws etc...

_ Actually, they aren't bad at thinking things through, it is impossible to
think things through.
[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-
lecture.html)

> Facebook is a victim of itself. If it didn't track users in the first place,
> it wouldn't be in hot water.

I don't want to defend facebook. Maybe what they do is bad, I'm sure that's an
interesting discussion, I really don't know. What I'm saying is: Even if what
they are doing IS bad, then the state still shouldn't intervene if they don't
breach the contracts with their customers. Facebook doesn't force you to use
their services, and if you do so voluntarily then it's on facebook's terms,
though luck.

~~~
ltamake
> Facebook doesn't force you to use their services, and if you do so
> voluntarily then it's on facebook's terms, though luck.

WRONG! Think about all the sites that have Like buttons. Facebook never showed
me a form or a checkbox to use that, did they? Yet they're gathering
information on the sites I go to and setting up "shadow profiles" (as europe-
v-facebook put them).

You're right, Facebook doesn't make me use Facebook -- they're trying to force
me to.

And sure, I can just use hosts to block the Facebook site, but I shouldn't
have to do that just to stop them from tracking me.

------
w1ntermute
> If you use Facebook, records of all these visits are linked, through
> cookies, to your Facebook profile - even if you never click the “like”
> button.

Ghostery[0] prevents this, IIRC.

0: <http://www.ghostery.com/>

~~~
akanster
Also, if you already have AdBlock Plus for firefox installed, try this:
[http://lifehacker.com/5542041/block-sites-from-using-your-
fa...](http://lifehacker.com/5542041/block-sites-from-using-your-facebook-
login-with-adblock-plus)

Prevents non-facebook domains from knowing when you are logged into facebook.

------
lukasb
The "excessive processing of data" claim, if valid, would seem to make any
social networking service a non-starter:

"Facebook is hosting enormous amounts of personal data and it is processing
all data for its own purposes. It seems Facebook is a prime example of illegal
'excessive processing'."

~~~
DanBC
Some data-processing is an intrinsic part of running a social networking site.
That's not being complained about. What is being complained about is the
secret data collection and processing that's happening without the user's
permission or knowledge - visiting a page with a like button gives data about
the user to Fb even if the user doesn't click the button. Fb then use that
information to do stuff.

Since the user has no way of knowing if a page he's about to visit will have a
Fb like button or not; and the user probably doesn't realise that Fb will
gather the data with no user interaction on the button; that seems like
excessive collection and processing.

------
MikeGrace
Will be really interesting to see what comes of this but I can't help but
think back to [http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2010/12/the-
free-...](http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2010/12/the-free-
model.html)

------
cwe
Man I want a copy of my report. Considering they're supposedly all about
eliminating privacy, shouldn't they want to make all this accessible?

~~~
runaway
Is the "Download a copy of your Facebook data." link under Account Settings
not the data you want? It looked complete to me.

~~~
cwe
It's a start. It does not include pokes, events threads, posting on other
peoples profiles, etc: lots of the stuff that it sounds like these Europeans
get.

------
vetler
I remember learning about the law that organizations have to provide all
information stored about individuals upon request when I was a kid in school.

We even sent out letters requesting information as an assignment. I sent to a
bank, I think. Not very interesting back then, but it would certainly be a lot
more interesting now!

------
Permit
Honest question: Why is Facebook governed, at least in part, by European law?
The reason I ask is that the United States has a lot of trouble enforcing its
copyright laws abroad (which is good in my opinion), but Facebook and Google
seem to bend to European laws regarding privacy and transparency.

~~~
beforebeta
The linked video (in german) explains this. Apparently Facebook has a
registered HQ in Ireland (presumably - as someone mentioned in another thread
- for tax purposes). Since it is a registered business in Ireland, it is
subject to all Irish and many applicable European laws (one of which is data
privacy). The 24-year-old Individual feels it's against his data privacy
rights that Facebook retains deleted messages.

Personally I find his arguments a bit flawed - e.g. in one instance apparently
he objects to the fact that Facebook knows when he was ill because he can do a
quick CTRL-F on the text "ill" (german: krank) in the text he received from
Facebook. My question is - isn't he the one who posted that content in the
first place?

Secondly, he complains that deleted messages are still retained by Facebook.
Could that just be a referential integrity constraint - since most messages
require 2 or more parties. Therefore, although he deletes the messages, the
other party still has the message in their inbox. Therefore, Facebook cannot
simply delete the message. Furthermore, since the message has him linked, even
if he deletes it from his side, Facebook needs to retain that information on
their side.

You know the best solution to protect yourself from Facebook's data privacy
policies - get off Facebook or at least be cautious when you post! I
personally love the service and think one should be smart about what they post
on publicly accessible social networks since that data remains for eternity!

~~~
dantheman
Watch all the tech companies leave Ireland due draconian European laws.

I don't understand, why all law must be proactive. Let people try and
experiment, let norms evolve. Why must we prelegislate things, wait until
facebook or someone else starts doing horrible things before passing a law.

~~~
rickmb
Companies and governments already did horrible things in the past few decades.
That's why the laws are there. Basically the same reasons why the US has the
right to bare arms.

You may want to read up on your history before you call European laws to
protect the privacy, freedom and very lives of it's own citizens "draconian".

They are only draconian if you believe the rights of corporations trump those
of the people. Which is basically what the US has been doing for quite a while
now, not really an example other countries care to follow.

------
dhughes
Funny, I had to take a two hour mandatory company privacy training course
today and the gist of it was the company could only use personal information
customers allowed for the purpose it was intended to be used for.

The personal info can't be used for anything else other than what the customer
agreed to. When the information is no longer required or whatever it was used
for is finished the information has to be securely destroyed, until that point
it has to be stored and guarded as securely as is possible.

Anyway after all that they proudly said we have a TRUSTe rating and showed
other sites which also have it one of which is Facebook. Something seems wrong
with that picture.

------
namank
I don't understand WHY Facebook chose to not reveal the rest of the data on
the first attempt. Let it be a sign of good faith! FB is not alone in this,
obviously sites that I visit track usage and what not.

If its a best practices for business thing (do not bend over more than you
have too) then C'MONNN! This is the post baby boomers age, bro - the digital
age. Get with the show, be good.

Why would they delay sending others the data? In fact, I would use this
opportunity to gain the trust that left the building with the long lost battle
about privacy (settings)

Of course I presume all the data they collect is within the bounds of legal
and ethical lines.

------
jhferris3
So, I'm going to make a statement that I think is important for anyone reading
anything on the internet.

WHAT IS THE PROOF! (also known as 'consider the author', 'read the article',
etc)

Now I can't say with certainty that any of these claims are false or true, but
it occurs to me that a lot of these claims are based on what facebook MIGHT be
doing with your data. I decided to take a look at the complaint and
attachments for the shadow profiles case, I don't see any evidence that these
shadow profiles exist, just that there is the possibility that they exist.

And for those that will inevitably say that proof isn't necessary, that means
you don't trust facebook. If thats the case, there is nothing they can do to
prove to you what they're doing is legitimate short of open sourcing their
entire stack (and even then, you must trust that what they're running == the
source they give you). So either trust that what they're saying is true, find
evidence that they're doing something they aren't supposed to, or stop using
the service entirely.

~~~
alexgartrell
Disclaimer, jack works with me at Facebook, so he's going to be biased (as
will I). However, it is true that there appears to be a circular dependency
between speculation and outrage here, and that probably isn't the greatest
thing in the world. All I can do is tell you to keep looking for evidence
(seriously, keep us honest), and we will earn your trust again some day.

~~~
jhferris3
Correct. I thought that was in my profile info (it wasn't has since been
updated). That said, I was going out of my way to make my comment as general
purpose as possible (I think evaluating the bias of anything you read on the
internet is generally a Good Idea(tm) )

------
tcarnell
Regarding deleted data: there are clearly two concepts of 'deleted' a).
deleted in terms of the application/user interface (ie, it is no longer
visible) and b). deleted in terms of physical removal from all permenant
storage. Clicking on a button labelled "delete" does not necesarily imply one
or the other.

For example, if I "delete" an email in google it is not deleted, it goes to my
'trash/bin' folder - is this also a breach of the law? and are we sure which
definition the "Delete Forever" button is using?

...I suppose its up to the terms and conditions to define this.

------
samirahmed
1200 pages of information? Why does Facebook as a service (omitting privacy)
not have the ability to search through comments etc...

they need to get there shit together

------
apitaru
If I could drive one thing into the collective minds of FaceBook users, it
would be this:

"If you're not paying for something, you're not the customer, you're the
product being sold" *Andrew Lewis

------
poisonbit
In Europe, consumers are persons and have rights.

In some issues, consumer rights have the same importance than big-fat-company.

I don't know if in other continents everybody is pro unscrupulous vendors.

Greetings.

------
01PH
Does anybody know when the story hit Reddit for the first time? Not quite sure
if this wasn't on HN first.

------
saturdaysaint
What's the deal with "Europe" vs Facebook? Is anyone else catching a little
bit of nationalism?

~~~
X-Istence
Europe has strong data protection laws that the US does not have, so it is
entirely apt to say that it is Europe vs Facebook. Could you say that it is
Max vs Facebook, yes, you'd be just as right, however these rights affect
every single person in Europe that is browsing the internet and comes across a
site with a Facebook like button.

------
namank
DOWNLOAD a copy of your personal data here:

<https://www.facebook.com/settings>

Click 'Download a Copy'

~~~
salvadors
That'll get you about 1% of the data Facebook actually hold about you.

~~~
namank
Yes. Its for people to see what kind of data is readily available and what
isn't.

I know someone here mentioned why don't they set up a site where anyone can
access it.

------
twodayslate
If you don't like them storing your data, then don't go on the site. They
won't have it if you don't give it to them.

~~~
Natsu
One of the complaints is that they have profiles on people who are not users.
They can get other people to give them information about you.

Specifically, have a look at complaint #2:

"Shadow Profiles. Facebook is collecting data about people without their
knowledge. This information is used to substitute existing profiles and to
create profiles of non-users."

[http://europe-v-
facebook.org/Compalint_02_Shadow_Profiles.pd...](http://europe-v-
facebook.org/Compalint_02_Shadow_Profiles.pdf)

<http://europe-v-facebook.org/02_Shaddow_Profiles.zip>

~~~
slowpoke
This. It's the most important thing to stretch by far. One can definitely
argue about whether or not people using Facebook should be allowed to complain
that they are giving their data to them.

 _I do not use Facebook. They still try to get my data._

Well, they would if they could, and wouldn't be shitlisted by at least four
layers of filters (NoScript, Ghostery, AdBlock, RequestPolicy). Still, I can't
block Facebook trying to get people to identify me on photos I might happen to
be on. While pretty much anyone I am closer acquainted to knows that we'd be
through if they'd ever put pictures of me on Facebook, I can't control this
for obvious reasons. I can't control photos taken of me on, for example,
concerts, either. It's this loss of control that worries me the most.

What I am also concerned about is the fact that people who are not aware of
the dangers that Facebook poses might learn one day - and then there will be
no way to correct their mistakes anymore.

Finally, I am deeply anxious about the future of the net if stupid ideas like
the Facebook login gain traction. I don't want to see a web where Facebook or
Google are mandatory to do anything useful. It's already extremely disturbing
how much of the net runs on stuff made by Google. This amount of dependency on
a single, commercial entity is _insanity_ , no matter how persistently they
might insist on their "Don't be evil" policy.

~~~
Natsu
The fun thing about tags is that you can't remove them unless you join
Facebook. And one of the complaints is that removed tags aren't removed, but
made non-public. These two points are raised in complaints #3 and #11:

<http://europe-v-facebook.org/Complaint_03_Tagging.pdf>

<http://europe-v-facebook.org/Comlaint_11_RemovalOfTags.pdf>

------
modeless
So much outrage, and yet so little actual harm. These people may mean well but
they are ushering in an era of government regulation of the internet that will
(perversely) entrench incumbents like Facebook.

