A bill in California and a lawsuit in Australia show that Meta’s ability to avoid responsibility for what people put on its platforms (Facebook, Instagram) may be over.
Brad: a couple of comments. 1) When you say "eight years before Facebook was even a glimmer in Mark Zuckerberg’s unblinking eye" shouldn't you be saying the Winklevos's eyes? And while I share your views on addiction, shouldn't the fact that the industry labeled them as "users" out of the box when the technical definition was visitors be telling tale on intent?
It's fair to remind me of the Winkelvis part in the inception of Facebook, although I don't know that they therefore deserve any of the blame for its subsequent troubles. On the "users" issue, I've been having this argument with Joe Jaffe for years. He's against "users" because he thinks it makes the internet seem like drugs, but I think that's approrpriate... particularly with social media. It's certainly not a Facebook neologism, though. "Users" predates Facebook by a lot. When I was at EarthLink, we talked about members and subscribers most of the time. Since Facebook members don't pay, it's hard to use those terms. "Participants" might work if you're looking for something other than "users." I also like "Participants" because it captures the activity around the idea that people DO things on social media, rather than just passively reading/watching.
I’m curious if you think the bill is fine as is, goes too far, or not far enough? Also noticed a typo: “certain,” when you meant “certainly.” Those old GSI habits are hard to kick too ;)
Hey Ron, thanks for reading and thanks for catching that typo. I fixed it, although that doesn't do anything for the folks who have already downloaded their email.
I don't have a thoughtful opinion about whether or not the bill is enough, not enough, or too much because I know that Facebook will fight it tooth and nail via its prodigious lobbying organization, so whatever the initial version is won't last long. Opening the door to liability for what happens on its platform, no matter the scope, will incentivize Facebook to change in a way that it hasn't heretofore.
Great article Brad!
Thanks, Molly!!
Brad: a couple of comments. 1) When you say "eight years before Facebook was even a glimmer in Mark Zuckerberg’s unblinking eye" shouldn't you be saying the Winklevos's eyes? And while I share your views on addiction, shouldn't the fact that the industry labeled them as "users" out of the box when the technical definition was visitors be telling tale on intent?
Hi Dave, thanks for reading!
It's fair to remind me of the Winkelvis part in the inception of Facebook, although I don't know that they therefore deserve any of the blame for its subsequent troubles. On the "users" issue, I've been having this argument with Joe Jaffe for years. He's against "users" because he thinks it makes the internet seem like drugs, but I think that's approrpriate... particularly with social media. It's certainly not a Facebook neologism, though. "Users" predates Facebook by a lot. When I was at EarthLink, we talked about members and subscribers most of the time. Since Facebook members don't pay, it's hard to use those terms. "Participants" might work if you're looking for something other than "users." I also like "Participants" because it captures the activity around the idea that people DO things on social media, rather than just passively reading/watching.
Thanks,
BB
Very informative. It is amazing that Facebook has gone so long without the regulation that is clearly indicated. Thanks
I’m curious if you think the bill is fine as is, goes too far, or not far enough? Also noticed a typo: “certain,” when you meant “certainly.” Those old GSI habits are hard to kick too ;)
Hey Ron, thanks for reading and thanks for catching that typo. I fixed it, although that doesn't do anything for the folks who have already downloaded their email.
I don't have a thoughtful opinion about whether or not the bill is enough, not enough, or too much because I know that Facebook will fight it tooth and nail via its prodigious lobbying organization, so whatever the initial version is won't last long. Opening the door to liability for what happens on its platform, no matter the scope, will incentivize Facebook to change in a way that it hasn't heretofore.