Lawmakers fed up with Zuckerberg

Re:Lawmakers fed up with Zuckerberg by smallgovt on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:20PM (#18729701)

I disagree with that popular notion also. We're entitled to our opinions and it's natural to judge others, but I think it crosses the line when that judgement turns into action, and that action is net harmful.

In outrage scandals like this, we're so quick to condemn the actor and demand punishment. I think the more constructive action is to condemn the action (not the actor) and demand regulation (not punishment). Condemning the actor may quench our thirst for justice, but I think it's often net harmful.

I get that calling for punishment is a good disincentive for future immoral, unregulated activity, but the punishment has to fit the bill. FB lost, what, $30B of value over this 'scandal'. Is that not a big enough fine?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawmakers fed up with Zuckerberg by yesenadam on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:29PM (#18729774)

FB lost, what, $30B of value over this 'scandal'. Is that not a big enough fine?

Isn't that like when a rich/famous person evades punishment for a crime that the average person would get a long jail sentence for, because from loss of income etc they'd already got 'a big enough fine'? i.e. effectively only the non-rich are punished for crimes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lawmakers fed up with Zuckerberg by starbeast on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:46PM (#18729909)

Well, I think you have bias on this 'scandal', or should I say scandal. It is a scandal and also to claim loss of market value from the scandal is equivalent to some sort of fine or other legal punishment is beyond ridiculous (and kind of shows your hand a little).

[ Parent | on HN ]