I agree that there's way too much unnecessary vitrol over FB on these forums, but let's not pretend like FB is some "new, scrappy disruptor" of legacy media institutions engaging in a "coordinated attack". Facebook has just become the _new_ media power and legacy media is trying to reassert itself. I didn't enjoy the stranglehold of legacy media on information flow before and I don't enjoy the strangle of Facebook now. Just because Facebook is better than legacy media (which I'm guessing many will second guess here) doesn't mean it's a _good_ alternative.

I'd be more than happy if facebook disappeared. They are a disaster, no doubt. That's not what's going to happen though. Facebook will get exactly what they keep saying they want: regulation and oversight. Facebook will be just as entrenched as ever and will protect the Official Copy of Reality as defined by the ruling class. They are already doing that to some degree and just want it to be codified.

My concern is for the open internet, for the people, for the ability to challenge and dissent, for free speech in practical terms.

Is oversight of and transparency into recommendation algorithms, to make sure they don't overprioritize vitriol and sow division, really creating an "Official Copy of Reality"? At this point I'd say our reality is actively being fractured by the effects of these platforms. The solutions suggested by Haugen, whose disclosure is driving this broader conversation we're having, are related to fundamental algorithmic design that feeds addiction and propagates completely false or harmful information – which is not exactly content moderation by the "powers that be".

If it bleeds, it leads. The corporate media has been the primary sower of division and spreads plenty of misinformation itself.

Polarization and vitriol precedes these platforms. Facebook, twitter, reddit, they all make it worse, I agree with that. And I would be in favor of requiring them to make their algorithms public at the very least.

But we must not give an even more centralized authority power over what's considered `harmful` or `misinformation`. You have to imagine this tool in the hands of your enemy because at some point it will be.

I agree that the regulation and oversight they seek will be a mistake. They'll help create a regulatory regime which only Facebook will be in a position to comply with and stifle all competition in this space. That is definitely a concern I have with all the vitrol I see here.

The internet (for the last few years) is both a megaphone for shouting the narrative of the ruling class, and a funnel for collecting information about every other class.

Zuckerberg went to Harvard. Sandberg got her BA and MBA from Harvard before working for Larry Summers at the World Bank and U.S. Treasury. Peter Thiel got his bachelors and law degree at Stanford before clerking for a federal judge and trading options for Credit Suisse. He had a direct line to President Trump and spoke to him often.

To believe that “the ruling class” oppose Facebook because people say mean things there, you have to maintain a crazily tortured definition of who is and is not in the ruling class.

To believe that Facebook, a huge company that recruits heavily from the Ivy League and pays huge salaries across the board, is not an elite institution, requires willful ignorance about what they do and who they work for. Who do you think buys most of the ads on Facebook? Dynamic amateurs and the broader public?