In The Netherlands the popularity has gone down in 2018 
And this is exactly why it needs regulation.
I think you misspelled "compell".
Regulatory compliance is not a matter of cooperation.
Regulation is a farce. It requires a body from which the regulations are spawned/enforced, and no such body is incorruptible. History shows us this time and again.
Hell, look at the example that you gave. Oil monopolies were come down upon hard in the early 20th century, and to what end? It's still a firebreathing monster of a corrupt economics.
At that point, I think society will need to question where they have given power: to the governments through taxes and laws, or to corporations through willful dollars and convenience? After all, what power does a body have if not granted it by the people (at least ideally)?
I think we have a lot to learn from how generations of infighting for control of the Roman empire led to the disintegration of civic society that allowed the Christian church to fill the power vacuum. The transition from the Principate, during which Emperors still paid lip service to the Senate, to the Dominate, where the pretense was lifted, was made possible because centuries of factionalism had destroyed the foundations that allowed checks and balances to be enforced.
I don't think this is necessarily true. The Mayor of Toronto admitted to smoking cocaine, and after that regained his former seat on the city council.
The blackmail attempt on Bezos just recently.
Trump is president, despite the mountains of dirt on it.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are still touring.
I don't think the electorate cares if you're caught doing anything adults do, and low level corruption seems to be the norm in many developed democracies.
What could any of the large data-whore companies possibly have on anyone that would utterly destroy?
Banning Facebook in the UK would cause them a significant amount of grief and likely close their London office (Facebook is the IDP for Facebook employees). Most folks are not going to go through the trouble of setting up VPNs for their phones to connect to Facebook.
China had no problem banning gmail even though it was popular there because no one had to suffer through an election for the decision. The UK doesn’t have that luxury.
Agreed, but only with the caveat that that is temporary. I think we are rapidly approaching the point that corporations will be able to sidestep the rug governments currently threaten to pull out from under them. I think that tipping point will be an interesting, if not horrifying inflection point in our history.
Furthermore, much of (at least in the US's case) the "force" you speak of is now rooted in the military-industrial complex. What happens when defense contractors find that it might be more profitable to throw their hat in with a megacorp rather than the government? It's a scary thought.
No voters or politicians publicly come out in favour of offshore tax havens... and yet somehow, 20 years later they're still there.
The UK Prime Minister could phone up the head of any British Overseas Territory today and invite them to reform their tax reporting or else a Tomahawk will be fired at their office.
Megacorps will find it hard to resist Gunboat Diplomacy.
What guarantees that they will always be on the side of governments?
> That employees are becoming more loyal to their employers?
No, but the common citizen is becoming that way. Right now, are people more likely to call up their representative to try to get something done, or post something to facebook related to their political leanings?
Most people who join militaries are not career military types and most also care greatly which side they're on. True mercenaries are extremely rare.
Let’s say that Zukerberg tells the UK government to fuck off. There would surely be consequences against Facebook’s UK assets, and maybe employees. But that’s a small part of Facebook overall, and he may decide this is worth it. Direct consequences for him will be limited. He probably couldn’t travel to the UK anymore, but would anyone else extradite him for this sort of thing? Seems unlikely. And it’s not like the UK is going to send in the SAS to kidnap him in another country.
Who advertises on Facebook and targets UK users? Companies in the UK.
Who controls the banking system through which that money flows? The UK banking system.
There are many sanctions the UK can impose short of a full ban. They can issue fines (and collect them), interfere with the Facebook cash flow, in the case of things that are crimes in both the UK and the US can formally request extradition, etc.
I think the HN crowd has been reading a bit too much cyberpunk.
You'll see well funded PACs for the rest of your life.
The politicians aren't naive. They are inviting some level of campaign funding by threatening these companies. Google clearly has gotten the message. Facebook's spend is increasing significantly.
I doubt it. It's always going to be more profitable to be careful, answering the questions you can, avoiding the questions you can't. Better a faux outraged MP than a legitimately angry and crusading one.
Zuckerberg did not show up to this because frankly if he showed up to every piddly committee overseeing $2B of budget he was requested to attend on, he'd spend all his time doing that and none doing anything else. If they genuinely wanted information, they can ask for it, and his team can provide it (which is indeed what happened). They don't care about information, though. What they want is a whipping boy. It's not "giving someone the middle finger" to refuse to provide them an opportunity to grandstand at your expense. Especially if you have no legal obligation to turn up.
I mean, does anyone honestly think the outcome would have been different if he attended? People yell at him if he shows up and yell at him if he doesn't. If I were him, the calculation would simply be, "Will they yell a lot more if I don't come? Or will anything else bad happen? No? Then I'd rather save myself the time."
I'm old enough to remember when saying something like this earned you a free tinfoil hat and the condemnation of your saner friends.
Control the feed, control the people. Politicians will have to fall in line.
NB Pretty normal for a multinational to have at least one (and sometimes many) legal entities in each country where it has physical operations (offices, employees etc.).
It’s not that I don’t agree, it’s just a funny accusation coming from them.
Probably a fair amount of blood being pissed, bricks being shat.
1. What is the legal risk of not showing up? What are these lawmakers likely to do against him or Facebook? Can they compel him to personally testify?
2. What would be the moral obligation of showing up to answer questions? What does he owe them, really?
3. What is best for the financial interests of the company? What good would come out of sending Zuck out?
I assume his decision was mostly directed by the answer to number 3, but the others are curious thought experiments.
There's nothing he can do or say that would make any politician emphatic to him and Facebook in a hearing.
The reason to show up is that these people have the power to make laws and make Facebook's collective life in the UK difficult, and so it is in Zuckerberg's interest not to piss them off.
However, there may have been a calculation that him showing up wasn't going to make much difference to the opinions of MPs, and might provide video clips that were bad publicity.
If I recall, the U.S. crime of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, escalating to the felonious perjury if you show up and lie.
Both are criminal offenses, and both based on England's Parliamentary power to hold people in contempt.
2. If you wish to benefit from the protection of nation's laws, you'd best be willing to give their legislative bodies the benefit of your time. The fiduciary responsibility to U.S. stockholders means doing something that could severely depreciate share/stock prices could open an executive up to legal problems as well.
3. Not losing the capability to do business in another country ranks pretty high on best for the company. Morally speaking, the pursuit of profit normatively should not jeopardize diplomatic relationships between allies as well, but I won't pretend to know much more about international business than that.
A more left wing US administration and Congress would be able to make sweeping changes that would heavily impact Facebook. The FCC has regulatory powers that could be expanded, legislation could enact something like the former fairness doctrine, etc.
The global power of the federal government is not well appreciated.
You can therefore argue that Facebook depends upon there being a stable centrist/liberal government in power.
I’ve heard once you get in power you’ll be surrounded by 1). Ppl who are just like you because we as humans prefer that and 2). Ppl who flatter you very convincingly because we as humans also prefer that.
This can be a very dangerous situation to be in. You think everything is alright while outside the world flails and rages.
Who in the world is advising Mark Zuckerberg?
Scaling is hard, and everyone fails a few times on the way.
Still, these UK lawmakers taunting him is extremely ironic.
As has been the case for 40 years (some might claim 200) or more, the Tories would prefer to put the Tories before anything trivial like "the National Interest". Brexit was guaranteed to be a dumpster fire from the moment Cameron put a referendum in the manifesto.
The UK government and its organizations have had history of extra judicial killings(Esp during the Troubles), and stockpiling nuclear weapons, morally the stuff that FB is being called out for isn't even on the same scale.
The post title doesn't match the article's title. The post is "Zuckerberg roasted by lawmakers, accuse him of spectacular leadership failure", but the article is "Mark Zuckerberg humiliated by group of lawmakers, who accuse Facebook's CEO of spectacular leadership failure."
The internet archive goes back to 23 minutes after the article was originally posted , and it still has the current title. The original poster editorialized the title.
"So if the title does not fit, you must edit it".
The report called for urgent regulation of Facebook — including an independent UK body to stamp out harmful or illegal content — and skewered Zuckerberg for refusing to give evidence to the committee three times.
I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it. The UK government seems bound and determined to increase it's censorship foothold.
Can anyone in the UK comment on how these types of things are received by regular citizens? Are you concerned that your government is cracking down on content with censorship left and right?
That's one of the main concerns about Facebook (aside from privacy).
Anyone can post any kind of fake story with tremendous reach and no accountability or traceability.
With all proceeds of the stream / adverts given to the EFF or CitizenLab et al.
I'd bet we'd surpass the crowd-funding records set by Star Citizen...
Could be a whole new kind of "public justice by civic discourse for charity"? lmao
update, pls see my comment before downvoting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463
Ok found the source referred in the report
I still don't see where it says "Cambridge was pivotal to brexit."
It links it to something called "AggregateIQ" not Cambridge. Am i reading this wrong?