
Treat Facebook like something between a telco and a newspaper, says Zuckerberg - notlukesky
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-facebook/treat-us-like-something-between-a-telco-and-a-newspaper-says-facebooks-zuckerberg-idUSKBN2090MA
======
dntbnmpls
So he wants all the benefits of being a monopolistic platform without any of
the responsibilities and he wants all the benefits of being a publisher
without any of the responsibilities. Zuckerburg wants to eat his cake and have
it too.

Letting facebook be part telco and part newspaper would make it the greatest
propaganda machine in human history - one that is controlled by one person.
Hopefully countries will start banning facebook outright soon.

~~~
mlb_hn
Is he wrong?

Like a telco, Facebook allows people to communicate with one another without
going through another intermediary. However, it's not one-to-one like your
phone, it's one-to-many.

Like a newspaper the messages are broadcast out to everyone that's subscribed
to receive them. However, there's limited editorial control by Facebook
(except for content breaching their policies).

If we thought of Facebook as a glorified listserv with a pretty UI (and a
bunch of tracking cookies and injected ads) would it still seem like it should
be treated as a publisher?

~~~
celim307
I’d say Facebook does much more than have limited editorial control. They
dictate what you see, malicious Intent or not

~~~
mlb_hn
What do you mean by dictate what you see? Aside from the sponsored
content/ads, isn't it just a prioritized queue of what your Facebook friends
posted?

~~~
nitrogen
Prioritized by Facebook

------
bonestamp2
Treat Facebook like cigarettes, says me.

Suggesting they're a near necessary part of life, like a utility, is
laughable. But since he brought it up, replacing them with a proper newspaper
would be much more useful.

~~~
hi5eyes
Facebook serves many important roles especially with the groups feature. I
know many reddit/tech headasses will jerk off to the fact they abhor facebook
but facebook is integral to many local communities helping facilitate an
online flea market of sorts and almost being the most important network for
students (used textbooks, study groups, entrepreneurship etc.)

dont like it but its much more useful than the local news website

~~~
ginko
Yeah, but I don't see how that's a good thing. Many groups near me have moved
exclusively to Facebook meaning I'm essentially locked out from participating
in them.

Previously stuff like this would have been organized through a mailing list or
maybe a BBS. Facebook taking this over means that you have to allow them
spying on you to take part in basic social activities.

~~~
nl
The BBS and mailing list were vulnerable to spying too. I certainly remember
the weird signatures people used on their emails to "confuse echelon".

------
andrewflnr
We might disagree with Zuckerberg about the specific consequences, but as far
as the headline goes he's mostly right. Social media is a new thing, and
trying to use existing regulatory frameworks for it, like those for telcos and
newspapers, will lead to us all having a bad time.

Where I disagree, or at least am uncertain, is that the right regulatory
framework for social media lies on some kind of straight line between the two
others mentioned. In particular, those are both pretty heavyweight, and I
don't want any real obstacles for new competitors or people just running a
phpBB.

~~~
csydas
Can you elaborate a bit on how anyone "but" Facebook has a bad time by
applying the existing regulatory frameworks? You mention itsy-bitsy start-up
boards, but really none of the concerns being address in courts world wide
have anything to do with minor boards and everything to do with Facebook's
lack of control over their advertisers, the amount of information being shared
out to said advertisers, their position as a news platform (upon Facebook's
own insistence) plus their lack of vetting (keep in mind, this isn't about
them generating content or user posted content, it's about Facebook's
algorithms purposefully promoting this content; this is much different than
some nutcase spinning up a site on a VM somewhere an trying to SEO as much as
they can to get some attention from random google searches on hot-topic
subjects).

Social media walks a strange line where it seems that its proponents both want
to be treated as legitimate news, but not held to the same standards of
veracity and validation of the claims that traditional news sources purport to
follow*. Such scrutiny of Facebook isn't a concern for a start up unless
they're already engaging in bad-faith practices and/or problematic practices
per stringent Privacy Law (i.e., EU law).

Simply put, Facebook can see that their ability to expand past the US strongly
(more than it already has) is gated by the public perception of what Facebook
is/does. I'm no in the EU proper but close enough and get various
Warnings/messages about Facebook from facebook itself...and for me it's empty.

But make no mistake, Facebook really is trying to muddy the waters by
pretending that existing legislation targets or directly affects persons who
are not engaged in the non-sense which was required before.

~~~
andrewflnr
I feel that I should not have to justify the idea that applying laws designed
around a certain set of assumptions, in a situation that violates those
assumptions, is likely to produce bad outcomes. I feel that this should be the
default belief. But since you asked so nicely...

The case of treating FB as a telco is obvious: no accountability. I think
we're agreed that this is no good.

A news outlet (a) explicitly has their credibility on the line with regard to
their output and (b) is very selective in what they publish (for better or
worse). Neither of these is really the case for Facebook. For a given link,
only the poster's and linkee's credibility is on the line. Facebook defaults
to allowing posts, and is only somewhat selective in what it allows and
promotes. If this means Facebook is legally equivalent to the New York Times,
then so are HN, reddit, Pinterest, etc. Treating FB as a new agency requires
all of these sites to take responsibility for the opinions of all of their
users. This will discourage medium-sized sites where hand-moderation (doable
for small forums) is just becoming infeasible, and more importantly have a
chilling effect on people's online activity, because you'll never quite know
when the admins of the site you're posting on, or their robotic minions, will
panic about your controversial link. Better for them to delete your post just
in case they get in trouble with the law, and maybe better for you to not
bother and stay silent. This is also no good.

Of course that's just one scenario. Details may differ across the multiverse.
But one thing that doesn't change is that basing policy on something other
than reality always finds a way to go wrong.

------
aabhay
Isn’t that the very _problem_ with Facebook, that it wants to impartially
serve content like a telco, but partially control the content like a
newspaper?

~~~
sjtindell
I don’t think Facebook wants to control content, it’s hard, expensive, and
hurts their reputation. It’s users and governments complaining that forces
them into that game.

~~~
amirmc
Of course FB wants to control content. It helps them increase engagement and
also monetise.

~~~
andrewflnr
There are couple different kinds of "controlling the content". Facebook does
want to promote certain things, i.e. make them easier to find, but it doesn't
really want to delete or block things entirely, which is what I think GP was
talking about.

------
kbenson
So, treat them as a mash-up between one of the best known monopolies in US
history and an industry known for equal parts educating and confusing people?
That's both very forthcoming of him and completely terrifying.

The National Enquirer is a newspaper too, and probably the closer analogy to
Facebook in reality than more reputable news organizations.

~~~
hinkley
My first thought:

Imagine if William Randolph Heart and Ma Bell had a love child.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
My first thought:

shall I burn it or wipe my arse with it.

~~~
bonestamp2
Probably both, just be sure the wipe is first.

------
allears
Of course Zuck wants you to think he's a utility, essential and ubiquitous
like electricity and running water. Absolutely not a predatory and amoral
monopolist, no sir.

~~~
andrewflnr
Those aren't actually contradictory. But anyway, the point of this article is
that he's distancing Facebook from the "utility" category, not trying to join
it.

------
Barrin92
I'm still not sure why we don't regulate companies like facebook like we did
the rail industry. Force facebook and other social media companies to develop
an open API and standard and guarantee interoparibility, akin to other
federalized networks that already exist.

This takes the biggest anti-competitive aspect of facebook out, the network
and walled garden effect they have due to their sheer size.

It will mean that companies like Signal have much greater chance to compete
with whatsapp, it will reward whoever provides the best service to their
users, and it is relatively light and uncomplicated regulation.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Because you could show a politician a set of incompatible railroad tracks and
they would understand the problem. No such luck here.

------
kats
I feel like Zuckerberg doesn't get enough credit. I never heard anyone
describe Facebook that way, but immediately when I read "something between a
telco and a newspaper" I felt like "oh yeah, that makes sense." They clearly
offer services that are very telecom-like, and others that are more newspaper-
like. They probably also have planned out how being viewed this way would
effect them favorably, but it also just makes sense.

~~~
solarhoma
But the thing is absolutely no one should be using Facebook for their news
source.

~~~
meowface
Absolutely. But, this is Zuckerberg's full statement:

>I do think that there should be regulation on harmful content ... there’s a
question about which framework you use for this.

>Right now there are two frameworks that I think people have for existing
industries - there’s like newspapers and existing media, and then there’s the
telco-type model, which is ‘the data just flows through you’, but you’re not
going to hold a telco responsible if someone says something harmful on a phone
line.

>I actually think where we should be is somewhere in between.

Here is a charitable interpretation: he's considering how it should be
regulated, not what the company exactly is or should be. And I think his
statement there is correct. In practice, many people _do_ treat Facebook like
a sort of newspaper. I definitely think they shouldn't, but it's a fact.

He seems to be saying that, as a result, some kind of regulation similar to
newspaper-targeted regulation is necessary. But, at the same time, it's
certainly not exactly like a newspaper, where content is produced and
published exclusively by the source. Facebook doesn't even explicitly curate
content (or so they claim), let alone create it; they try to let curation
occur automatically through algorithms.

This absolutely may be a duplicitous attempt at humility on his part, but,
regardless of the underlying intent, I think his public message is that
Facebook is in a unique position where it can influence a lot of people to
believe certain claims and ostensible facts like a newspaper would, and yet is
not an author of content in the way a newspaper is. I think he's trying to
allude to the additional responsibility they have and the risk they pose which
telcos don't share, and that there's a need to regulate them more strictly
than telcos as a result. He's saying they're a telco that should be treated
with some of the regulatory gravity of a newspaper, rather than that they're a
newspaper that should be treated like a telco.

So I think people are kind of interpreting it in reverse. He's trying to sound
humble and accountable - perhaps to misleadingly deflect from his probable
true personal belief that they should have as minimal regulation as humanly
possible - rather than arrogantly proclaiming they should be immune from
regulation. (One can't rule out the possibility that he's being sincere, but
of course that's not exactly his reputation.)

tl;dr I think he's likely being sneaky rather than shameless.

~~~
solarhoma
Thanks for the write up. I agree with everything you’ve posted. Bottom line is
to never trust what Zuckerberg says. I am sure his days are filled with
lawyers hired solely to coach him.

------
v7x
So long as certain content (that is not restricted by external forces, i.e.
the law) is prohibited from the platform, I fail to see why they should be
considered anything other than a publisher. If the platform can only be used
for content they approve of, they can't be defined as anything else.

~~~
andrewflnr
I think the "default allow" of a social media platform is materially different
from the "default deny" of a typical publisher. That's kind of tricky to build
a sharp distinction on, but it's where I would start.

------
Traster
Shall we go and ask the head of Exxon Mobil what level of regulation he thinks
we should enforce for sub-standard engineering practices on oil tankers and
oil rigs?

How about next time the policeman stops a drunk driver we ask the drunk driver
what BAC would be reasonable for him to be driving with?

------
pochamago
I'll admit, I just don't think the way we've been regulating social media has
been bad. I think perceiving it as a source of news or truth instead of just a
place where people talk to each other is weird. I understand that people don't
like what some social media sites have become, but outside of removing content
that isn't protected by the first amendment, I really don't see why we would
want to create regulations surrounding it.

------
notlukesky
A brilliant suggestion by Mark Zuckerberg. Rules, regulations and compliance
are a burden and a barrier to entry for startups and competition. In most
countries there are only a couple of regulated telcos.

Imagine with the tech landscape and how many fewer companies there will be if
it is regulated like telcos.

Governments and regulators will have a bigger say in picking winners and
losers.

~~~
thulecitizen
"Hero myths like the ones surrounding Musk and Jobs are damaging in other
ways, too. If tech leaders are seen primarily as singular, lone achievers, it
is easier for them to extract disproportionate wealth. It is also harder to
get their companies to accept that they should return some of their profits to
agencies like NASA and the National Science Foundation through higher taxes or
simply less tax dodging.

And finally, technology hero worship tends to distort our visions of the
future. Why should governments do the hard work of fixing and expanding
California’s mass transit system when Musk says we could zip people across the
state at 760 miles per hour in a “hyperloop”? Is trying to colonize Mars, at a
cost in the billions of dollars, actually the right direction for future space
exploration and scientific research? We should be able to determine long-term
technology priorities without giving excessive weight to the particular
visions of a few tech celebrities.

Rather than placing tech leaders on a pedestal, we should put their successes
in context, acknowledging the role of government not only as a supporter of
basic science but as a partner for new ventures. Otherwise, it is all too easy
to denigrate public-sector investment, eroding support for government agencies
and training programs and ultimately putting future innovation at risk. As
Mazzucato puts it, “It’s precisely because we admire Musk and think his
contributions are important that we need to get real about where his success
actually comes from.”"

Source: [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539861/techs-enduring-
gre...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/539861/techs-enduring-great-man-
myth/)

------
spodek
How about treating Facebook like an unapologetic monomaniacal psychopath
fixated on provoking polarization and undermining communication?

------
dana321
Its more like a huge building with cameras everywhere watching what you do,
with you walking around with a huge sign with your real name on it, your likes
and what you have shared. People in far away lands are paid to watch the
cameras to make sure what is posted does not violate the building's terms of
services.

The building's walls have boards everywhere, some of them move upwards in a
continuous loop on a conveyor so you can stare at them, then stop them once
you see something interesting, open the ducket contained. They make money by
gluing sponsored ads in-between, that you must pay for.

You can see a copy of any other person's board in a small envelope next to
each person's name.

There are also rooms called "groups" you can go into but some of them are
private and you must answer 3 questions to get in.

Would make an interesting art exhibit recreating Facebook into a physical
form, well.. er. The closest thing i can think of is a library..

Its a bit dystopian when you think about the first line i wrote, about the
cameras watching everyone. But, its needed to stop horrible things getting
posted.

------
beenBoutIT
So IOW he's ok with the government breaking Facebook into a bunch of smaller
Regional Holding Companies, as it did with the Bell System?

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Don’t worry, in 30 years they’ll just coalesce back into the same blob. Maybe
sometimes they’ll make a big show out of it, but enough time will have got by
for everyone to forget why it happened in the first place.

------
mikl
Of course Facebook wants to have its cake and eat it too.

It would certainly be nice for them if they can claim editorial discretion,
without editorial responsibility or transparency. The perfect legal shield.
Power without responsibility.

It would be insane to grant them this. This might well be the most important
legal question this century.

------
root_axis
Treat Facebook like a website. It's just a website. It's not so important that
it needs a special designation. I think it makes sense to come up with data
and privacy laws that apply to all companies, not just Facebook.

------
Animats
I've been reading "Zucked", by McNamee, a VC who was involved with Facebook in
the early days and is now one of its harshest critics. Read the book.

------
habeebtc
Break them up like Ma Bell.

Hold them accountable like News of the World.

Give them the highest scrutiny afforded both platforms. Not the greatest
freedoms.

------
contingencies
Just think of how many lawyer and PR dollars came up with this PR / regulatory
relations strategy.

------
metalgearsolid
Facebook is really big so lets treat it as such, and look at things piece by
piece. Start with treating Facebook's NEWS FEED as a newspaper perhaps, then
move on to other problems like hate groups using facebook to organize,
marketplace fraud, etc.

------
sys_64738
Zuckerberg is a safe pair of hands. We can trust him with our data.

------
iamleppert
A phone company doesn’t suggest other phone numbers or people you should be
calling, or try and optimize for your engagement on making the most phone
calls. A telco company also traditionally does not directly market to users,
or sell ads based on the content of their data (voice calls and text
messages). So by this test, no, Facebook is nothing like a telco.

~~~
chillacy
That seems to be the point in the article, it's not like a telco. Another
thread here points out that it's not like a newspaper either.

In reality it's an entirely new category and applying regulations from the
20th century isn't going to work as well as coming up with entirely new ones
to address entirely new problems.

------
danielrhodes
Rephrased: Let us have the power of a telco, but with the regulation of a
newspaper.

------
rblion
I see it a mix of Big Brother, the Galactic Empire, and the Eye of Zuckron.

------
impalallama
Newspapers have now accountability.

------
picantePepper
wondering if this could pave the road for treating internet service as a
utility too

------
heartbeats
Let me guess, he should have the discretion of a newspaper and the freedom
from liability of a telco?

------
butterfi
Im going to treat them like the yellow pages, i.e. never use one again and
explain what it was to my kids.

------
officemonkey
Let's treat Facebook like something between a mental health threat and a
propoganda site, said ex-User.

------
MaupitiBlue
Do whatever the hell you want with FB, Zuck!

Stop worrying about trying to please the PC police and just run the most
addictive and profitable BBS you can. Promote whatever you want and shadow ban
whatever.

The Europeons may object, but ultimately in the US the political will doesn’t
exist to make you do more. A few politicians like Hawley on the right and AOC
on the left may have an issue that works for them, but the American majority
is going to look pretty skeptically at any significant regulation.

