Facebook Fallout...

I know I could have gone back to the previous thread about what happened with FB and whatnot.

But that's not the line of discussion I wanted to go down- when you listen to both the statements by Zukerberg and how most of the press is reading the same thing, it appears that it's inevitable that there will be regulations surrounding Facebook.

Which is ripe for a whole line of discussion, which is fine.

What I wanted to point out that it very much seems that FB was invited to help write most of the regulations.  Which is yet ANOTHER line of discussion.  And that actually impacts GRM, since they are a very small social media company.  All at GRM, I suggest that you engage with your local Representatives and Senators to be able to provide input to these new regulations.  This to prevent FB from putting in regulations that make it harder for GRM to exist.   GRM and FB are similar business models that generate money by selling advertising, but do it in VERY different models.  So make sure that these new laws don't eliminate this board nor harm the magazine.

Good thinking, Eric. And of course, this would have implications far beyond GRM. Any small to medium business that relies on social media as a big part of it's business model could be affected.

I don't know enough about the particulars to know what the potential pitfalls might be, but if the GRM team or someone else can summarize them, I'd be happy to pass them along to my congress-critters.

Its all smoke and mirrors.  The government is afraid of the communication power of social media and wants to make it into a public utility so they can regulate it. 

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "  Ronald Reagan
 

What struck me most about the hearings was how clueless most members of congress are.  They didn't even have the basic knowledge to ask questions like  "do you track users when they are no longer logged into Facebook?"   

In the end, I think Facebook will decide the best way to regulate Facebook, as congress is completely lost. (big surprise)  Eric's points are well taken though. 

In reply to Joe Gearin :

Agreed. Many facepalm moments were in that hearing. If I remember correctly there was even a question like "How is not charging users for a service a sustainable business model?"

Clearly they had never logged into Facebook (or used the internet) and noticed the prevalence of ads. 

it's all a "dog & pony show".

I couldn't care less what Facebook does.

I'm not part of that social media thing.

I do however regret not buying Facebook stock at "17" when I had a chance.

In reply to enginenerd :

There's a very fine line they need to walk with this questioning that makes it completely useless for anything but headlines. Because there are a lot of people who'd like to ask very similar questions about the government's own data collection initiatives. 

Some EU-style privacy regulations could help quite a lot without causing any meaningful problems for social media companies (evidenced by the fact that they're still profitably operating in the EU).

Or keep enjoying unbridled surveillance capitalism, this one doesn't directly affect me in the slightest and I'd actually prefer if it led to widespread backlash and boycotting of the worst offenders.

Joe Gearin said:

What struck me most about the hearings was how clueless most members of congress are.  They didn't even have the basic knowledge to ask questions like  "do you track users when they are no longer logged into Facebook?"   

In the end, I think Facebook will decide the best way to regulate Facebook, as congress is completely lost. (big surprise)  Eric's points are well taken though. 

I think many of us should contact our own representation to remind them to make sure the smaller companies have input.  It's pretty common that bad actors in an industry get to make the rules for themselves, which hurt both the smaller and the honest companies.  And that's exactly why I hope you can find time to put your input in.

If they want to treat social media like a utility, then wouldn't they have to regulate the ISPs first? That seems unlikely considering the moves that the FCC has already made to aid the ISPs and essentially de-regulate.

jimbbski said:

it's all a "dog & pony show".

 

I couldn't care less what Facebook does.

I'm not part of that social media thing.

I do however regret not buying Facebook stock at "17" when I had a chance.

 

You are a "Dork" here- which puts you into the Social Media realm.  And this tiny area is exactly why I bring the point up.  What FB does with Congress will likely impact GRM.

jharry3 said:

Its all smoke and mirrors.  The government is afraid of the communication power of social media and wants to make it into a public utility so they can regulate it. 

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "  Ronald Reagan
 

If they did, they would have done it by now.  FB had issues back in 2011 with data privacy.  It would have been easy to follow the EU exactly at that point if your theory was right.

Instead, the bias is toward companies that make a lot of money- which is pretty typical until someone in the industry does something bad.  Which then results in regulations.

alfadriver said:

jimbbski said:

it's all a "dog & pony show".

 

I couldn't care less what Facebook does.

I'm not part of that social media thing.

I do however regret not buying Facebook stock at "17" when I had a chance.

 

You are a "Dork" here- which puts you into the Social Media realm.  And this tiny area is exactly why I bring the point up.  What FB does with Congress will likely impact GRM.

I agree it's a dog and pony show.  But more from an aspect of each congressperson to get some attention on TV and take back to their constituents that they "stuck it" to FB.  When we finally get to the regulation documents, it'll bounce back and forth in committees because we'll be starting up for mid-term elections. None of them will want to take a risk of losing votes, so they'll continue to delay.  Something else will come to the public's attention and it'll quietly be dropped and forgotten about. 

I doubt anything will come from this other than lots of talk, lots of advertising dollars for the media, some sound bites for congress to take back to their constituents and FB to go back to what they did before.  Perhaps, FB will change because their stock and user numbers have dropped as a result.  Might be the beginning of the death knell for FB if something else comes along. 

-Rob

Not to sound cynical, but the whole thing is a joke.  Congress has shown its stripes long ago.  Government will unhesitatingly strip away the rights of the individual in favor of corporate profits.  Large corporations own the government of these United States.  This is a media event--an attempt by government to appease those citizens that are expressing concern and to give the (false) impression that steps are being taken.

Can you imagine the amount of lobbyists and politicians wanting to meet with Zuckerberg for campaign contributions?   

"Don't worry Mark.... you help us out in the midterm elections, and we'll be sure this whole thing goes away"

I bet it was a feeding frenzy, and I bet both sides of the isle were singing the same song.  

jimbbski said:

I'm not part of that social media thing.

 

You must live somewhere other than Planet Earth. 

I don't have a FB account, but it definitely impacts me every day. 

In reply to rob_lewis :

Did you see the part where some Senator held up a poster of various images that were taken off of fb such as a confederate flag and he asked Zuckerberg if he knew about them.

Hey, Senator, while you’re at it, why don’t you hold up an individual cheerio and grill the CEO of General Mills over it???...grandstanding much???

jharry3 said:

Its all smoke and mirrors.  The government is afraid of the communication power of social media and wants to make it into a public utility so they can regulate it. 

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "  Ronald Reagan
 

I must point out that this quote by Reagan is taken out of context, and as such, represents a gross mis-characterization of Reagan's attitude toward government.

From his remarks given August 15, 1986:

"Well, anyway, it's wonderful to be having this White House Conference on Small Business again after almost 6 years. Things certainly have changed in the meantime. Back then, government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. [Laughter] Well, with your help, I think we've turned all that around. We cut taxes. We squashed inflation. We brought interest rates down, threw out needless regulations, setting the economy on a growth path that has created somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 million new jobs in under 4 years. Now, most people know that history. What isn't widely enough recognized, however, is the leading role of entrepreneurs and small businesses in our ongoing expansion."

Reagan was in favor of tax cuts, de-regulation, and against subsidies.  He was a champion of small business.  Shame on you, sir.

I'm a reluctant part of social media, just not a very active participant. 

RX Reven' said:

In reply to rob_lewis :

Did you see the part where some Senator held up a poster of various images that were taken off of fb such as a confederate flag and he asked Zuckerberg if he knew about them.

Hey, Senator, while you’re at it, why don’t you hold up an individual cheerio and grill the CEO of General Mills over it???...grandstanding much???

No, I did not see that one, but living in Texas, I heard about Ted Cruz asking if FB was a politically biased company and literally laughed out loud.  To me, Cruz is the shining example of what this hearing is all about.  Get your sound bite so you can go back to your supporters and create what narrative you want to get votes. 

I wish I could find the time to sit and watch it live and keep up the various news medias and other social media outlets to watch the differences in how people interpret things.

But I still stand by my assessment that the only thing that comes out of this is election fodder.  Which might end up being a good thing that Congress doesn't try to regulate something they are clueless about. 

-Rob

1988RedT2 said:

jharry3 said:

Its all smoke and mirrors.  The government is afraid of the communication power of social media and wants to make it into a public utility so they can regulate it. 

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "  Ronald Reagan
 

I must point out that this quote by Reagan is taken out of context, and as such, represents a gross mis-characterization of Reagan's attitude toward government.

From his remarks given August 15, 1986:

"Well, anyway, it's wonderful to be having this White House Conference on Small Business again after almost 6 years. Things certainly have changed in the meantime. Back then, government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. [Laughter] Well, with your help, I think we've turned all that around. We cut taxes. We squashed inflation. We brought interest rates down, threw out needless regulations, setting the economy on a growth path that has created somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 million new jobs in under 4 years. Now, most people know that history. What isn't widely enough recognized, however, is the leading role of entrepreneurs and small businesses in our ongoing expansion."

Reagan was in favor of tax cuts, de-regulation, and against subsidies.  He was a champion of small business.  Shame on you, sir.

My shame is in not completely annotating the citation to include this quote was Reagan's indictment of the problems of big government. 

enginenerd said:

In reply to Joe Gearin :

Agreed. Many facepalm moments were in that hearing. If I remember correctly there was even a question like "How is not charging users for a service a sustainable business model?"

Clearly they had never logged into Facebook (or used the internet) and noticed the prevalence of ads. 

Yeah... Zuckerburg's response to that question was perfect: "Senator. We sell ads."

That said, it wouldn't be the first time Congress has asked the fox to help watch the hen house... 

FWIW, I know people on Facebook who have absolute nonsense for their profile.  It's like any other tool or form of entertainment. It can misused and abused.

I found it interesting to hear that YouTube actually has more users than Facebook. 

jharry3 said:

1988RedT2 said:

jharry3 said:

Its all smoke and mirrors.  The government is afraid of the communication power of social media and wants to make it into a public utility so they can regulate it. 

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. "  Ronald Reagan
 

I must point out that this quote by Reagan is taken out of context, and as such, represents a gross mis-characterization of Reagan's attitude toward government.

From his remarks given August 15, 1986:

"Well, anyway, it's wonderful to be having this White House Conference on Small Business again after almost 6 years. Things certainly have changed in the meantime. Back then, government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. [Laughter] Well, with your help, I think we've turned all that around. We cut taxes. We squashed inflation. We brought interest rates down, threw out needless regulations, setting the economy on a growth path that has created somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 million new jobs in under 4 years. Now, most people know that history. What isn't widely enough recognized, however, is the leading role of entrepreneurs and small businesses in our ongoing expansion."

Reagan was in favor of tax cuts, de-regulation, and against subsidies.  He was a champion of small business.  Shame on you, sir.

My shame is in not completely annotating the citation to include this quote was Reagan's indictment of the problems of big government. 

If it was not for problems due to big companies, there would not have to be big government.  

If cars didn't pollute the air, and plants didn't pollute the water, there would be no need for the EPA.  If the stock market behaved, there would not be a need for the FTC.  If broadcasters behaved there would not need to be any regulations around them.

I could go on.

What Facebook is doing is nothing new, they've been doing it for a while and it seems everyone knew about it previously.  Now it's good press and someone has to pay.  My point of view is never to put anything on line that you don't want someone to know about.  Problem solved.  I couldn't care less is someone targets ads towards me based on views, I'd rather see that than someone sending me dozens of ads for things I have no interest in.  Seriously, who here firms up their opinion about anything based on something Facebook put out?  To me this is all a show about nothing.  What worries me more is the concerns that can breech bank details and actual personal info that can be used to access credit.  Don't know about the rest of you, but Facebook doesn't get that information from me in any manner.

In reply to Ian F :

Another shockingly dumb question from the congress critters…

”If I don’t like GM, I can go buy a Ford…is there a direct alternative to your product”.

Um, I’m pretty berkin’ sure you can’t buy a F150 from GM so no, GM, along with every other company in the history of companies does not offer a "direct alternative" to their competition.