He's a graphic design justice warrior and tribalist, without much regard about anything else in public. He hates that devs and entrepreneurs are able to create their own stuff and cut studied designers like him out of the equation. The FB thing is just another opportunity for him to bitch about reality.

Mike Montiero is quite a character, but requiring designers to go through some sort of licensing is absolutely ridiculous. As a commenter said, this will only create a protectionist racket.

Also, what about product managers, engineers and others that make feature decisions? What does it mean to be a licensed designer?

>I would bet that as soon as government begins infringing on the rights to work which affect HN usere, suddenly everyone here would be a civil libertarian.

I stated the above, and was downvoted for it a couple days ago. I would bet your comment continues to receive more upvotes.

I've been here for a while—I'd say that most of those on Hacker News are civil libertarians?

Looking at your previous comment, I think you were being downvoted for tone. I doubt anyone here is in support of a license to cut hair.

This article seems to be premised on the idea that Facebook's problems are caused by its designers, not its investors and the regulatory environment that it exists in.

The problems with FB are not a failure of design or engineering but a failure of the business and political culture.

Can that failed business and political culture solve its problems by creating onerous new laws on other people? I would think not, although they may try.

He’s not arguing for something that makes his job harder, he’s arguing to erect barriers to the job market to increase wages by capping supply.

It seems painfully obvious that licensing should be reserved for professions where there are major consequences to violating standards (i.e. medicine and law). Professions that bend more towards the arts may benefit from the "protection racket" aspect of licensing, while costing the rest of society.

Why is that painfully obvious?

Perhaps an ethics board will be a better solution.

What ethics? Ethic boards exist to oversee practice of professionals in fields where their actions have major consequences on the lives of the people who use their services.

Licensed by whom?

Maybe the same way lawyers are? A board set up by the state? Just guessing here