Choose for consumers Fair treatment by companies is required. When people can easily move to a competitor, it creates a natural market dynamic that dislikes a company to act properly. When we can not, the other regulations only make us trapped with a pig in a new layer of lipstick.
That's why FTC Examines how many billions for fine Facebook Or any of the executives who have to be personally responsible or whether they should go to the company and break up the company, I beg them to look at the root of how Facebook gets away from misusing user privacy: there is no simple way to switch to an alternative.
If Facebook users are tired of censorship, security breaches, false news, or hate, there is no general Western social network with a scope to join. Twitter is intended for short public content, Snapchat is intended for quick communication. We inform you neglected. Google+ is dead. Instagram is owned by Facebook. The rest are either Chinese, for one purpose, or small.
No, I do not expect the FTC to launch its own Fedbook social network. But what can be done is to pave the way to escape from Facebook until viable alternatives become viable options. For this reason, the FTC should ask Facebook to provide the possibility to transfer data that is physically operational to the social graph.
In other words, the government must approve regulations that force Facebook to allow you to export your friends list to other social networks in a secure, private way. This will allow you to connect with these people or follow them anywhere else so you can leave Facebook without losing contact with your friends. The increasing threat of people abandoning Facebook for competitors would create a stronger incentive to protect users and society.
The list of potential Facebook regulations currently being discussed by FTC presidents includes a fine of $ 3 billion to $ 5 billion, making Facebook's manager personally responsible for violations of the FTC's approval decree, creating new privacy and compliance functions, The executive can be filled by Zuckerberg, and establish an independent oversight committee to review the privacy and product decisions, according to The New York Times And Washington Post. Tougher measures can still be taken, such as restricting how Facebook collects and uses data to target ads, block future acquisitions or dismantle the company, but appear less likely.
Breaking the Facebook site is a terrible punishment for company violations. Still, I agree to some extent Zuckerberg responded to the call of co-founder Chris Hughes to split the company, Who said he would "do nothing to help" directly fix privacy problems or mislead Facebook. Because Facebook will probably not try to make more acquisitions of large social networks under all this scrutiny, it will benefit from a voluntary pledge not to try these purchases for at least three to five years. Otherwise, regulators can impose this ban, which may be more politically achievable with less downstream anarchist effects,
However, without regulating data portability, Facebook can pay a fine and return to business as usual. Can accept additional privacy control without fundamentally changing its product. Can become responsible for adhering to the lower character of the law while still breaking the soul. Even if disassembled, users will not be able to switch from Facebook to Instagram or Instagram and WhatsApp to a new location.
Facebook kills competition with user lock
When faced with competition in the past, Facebook started to work to improve itself. Fearing Google+ in 2011, Zuckerberg vowed to "destroy Carthage" and the company quickly launched Messenger, a timeline profile, a graph search, image enhancements, and more. After realizing the importance of mobile in 2012, Facebook re-designed its application, re-organized its teams, and demanded employees to carry Android phones for the "pilot" test. When Snape Chat was still growing rapidly to become a competitor, Facebook has reproduced its stories and now adopts the philosophy of demise.
Every time Facebook felt threatened, it was encouraged to improve its products for consumers. But once they beat their competitors, or shut down their growth, or restrict them to a particular purpose, privacy policies worsened on Facebook. Anti-trust researcher Dina Srinivasan explains this in her summary of the anti-monopoly case against Facebook:
For Facebook, the effects of the network for more than one billion users of closed communications protocol closed in the market for its benefit. These conditions – the exit of competition and the imprisonment of consumers – finally allowed Facebook to get consumer approval for something they resisted from the start. Almost synced with Google Exit, Facebook Announced (Also in June 2014), tracking user behavior on websites and apps over the Internet and using data from this monitoring will begin to target and influence consumers. Shortly thereafter, non-users began tracking. Use the "Like" buttons and other software licenses to do so. "
That's why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should look for regulations that not only punish Facebook for irregularities, but also allow consumers to do the same. Users can puncture holes in Facebook by leaving, which deprives them of advertising revenue and reduces their impact on the network to others. Empowering them with the ability to take their friends' list with them gives users a longer seat on the table. I call on what the University of Chicago professors Luigi Zengalis and Jay Rolnik have called Social Data Transfer Act.
Fortunately, Facebook already has a framework for data transfer through a feature called Find Friends. You can connect your Facebook account to another application, and you can find your friends on Facebook who are already on this app.
But the problem lies in that in the past, Facebook has encountered again and again Prevent competitors from using "find friends". This includes cutting Twitter, Vine, Voxer and MessageMe, while preventing Phhhoto from letting you find your friends on Instagram … Six months ago Instagram copied the basic GIF feature for Phhhoto and recorded it and named Boomerang. Then there is the problem that you need to have an active Facebook account to use Find Friends. This invalidates its usefulness as a way to bring your social graph with you when you leave Facebook.
The social network provides a "download your information" method that is useful for exporting images, status updates, messages, and other data about you. However, the list of friends can only be exported as a text list for HTML or JSON names. Names are not associated with their Facebook profiles or any unique identifiers, so there's no way to find your friend John Smith among everyone with that name in another app. Less than 5 per cent of my 2800 calls have used the unknown option to allow friends to export their email address. What about the big "Data Transfer Project" Facebook announced 10 months ago in partnership with Google, Twitter and Microsoft to provide more portability? Nothing has been released yet, raising questions about whether vapor has been designed to shield organizers.
This basically means that Facebook provides zero transferability to your friendships. This is what regulators need to change. There is already a precedent for this. The Telecommunications Act 1996 states that the FCC requires telephone service companies to allow customers to easily transfer their numbers to another carrier rather than having to assign a new number. If you think of the phone number as a way to connect with your friends, it makes sense for regulators to announce that the modern equivalent – your social networking friend's contacts – should be the same way.
How to break our friendships
Facebook should be required to allow you to export a list of interoperable friends that can be imported to other applications in a secure manner for privacy.
To do this, Facebook should allow you to download a copy of the list containing broken versions of phone numbers and e-mail addresses used by friends to register. You will not be able to read the connection information or Import freely and spam people. However, Facebook may be asked to share documents that teach other application developers to build a feature that securely checks the partition numbers and email addresses against those people who have subscribed to their app. This developer will not be able to read Facebook contact information either, or store any useful data about people who have not signed up with their app. But if the phone number or email address of someone in your Facebook friends list is identical to one of their users, they can show you or follow up with you.
This system will allow you to save your social graph, delete your Facebook account, and then search for your friends on other apps without compromising the privacy of their contact information. Facebook users will not be locked in and can easily choose to move their friends to any social network that works best for them. Facebook will not be able to prevent competitors from using it.
The result will closely match the goals of users, Facebook, and organizers. Facebook will not be liable to the Government for technical compliance with fines, supervision, or new liability. It will eventually have to compete for the best social application rather than relying on the impact of its network to restrict users to serve it.
This same model can extend the organization of data transfer to any application with more than 1 billion users, or even 100 million users, to ensure that YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat, or Reddit users are not able to lock users. By applying the rule only to applications that have a sufficiently large user base, regulation will not hinder the entry of new startups into the market and mistakenly creates a trench over well-funded Facebook owners who can afford the cost of engineering. The organization of data portability coupled with fine, responsibility, supervision and blocking of future acquisitions on social networks can put Facebook directly without dismantling them.
Users have a lot of complaints about Facebook that go beyond absolute privacy. But their recourse is always limited because there is no other place to go in many jobs, and it is very difficult to go there. Through the latter's reform, the FTC can stimulate the emergence of Facebook alternatives so that users rather than regulators can play the role of king maker.