Nobody said we _should_ focus only on Facebook? This kind of whataboutism is an easy way to deflect from fixing any one company, but if you've got three broken companies and you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix.
The problem is the lack of a coherent framework of rules that correctly apply existing constitutional principles to modern technology. The 4th amendment should have been sufficient to prevent the casual destruction of the concept of privacy, but it's become overwhelmingly apparent that we need an explicit framework protecting individual digital information rights. Make commercial surveillance illegal, or prevent mass harvesting of private data, and you've solved much of what's fundamentally wrong with big tech.
Problems with Facebook, et al, are symptoms of bad legislation. By focusing energy on "fixing" the companies, we risk losing sight of the institutional failures that allowed them to become a problem.
This is not a Whataboutism. I didn't raise a counter accusation, I said Facebook + others should be looked into - not only Facebook.
> but if you've got three broken companies and you fix one of them, you've now only got two broken companies to fix.
Now, we've to somehow decide the order. I say with start at Amazon, the parent will say Facebook and someone else will say Apple. We are back to square one. Therefore, my suggestion was to take uniform and consistent action. Not, go after one organisation because of popularity.
Your suggestion reads like you want to stop progress on Facebook because you'd prefer amazon to be looked at first.
Unless your suggestion is to do them all simultaneously? But then who's going to synchronize all the hearings to make sure all the judges hit their gavels at the same time? And if one company stalls, won't that stop any action on any of them?
> Your suggestion reads like you want to stop progress on Facebook because you'd prefer amazon to be looked at first.
That wasn't my suggestion, really. The parent comment said that "We should start at Facebook". I facetiously said, "We can also start at Amazon or Apple".
> Unless your suggestion is to do them all simultaneously? But then who's going to synchronize all the hearings to make sure all the judges hit their gavels at the same time? And if one company stalls, won't that stop any action on any of them?
Mine would be to start somewhere, anywhere, and get momentum behind it. Fix at least one company (ideally more), fix the people who benefit from the current system, and fix the system itself. It's a ton of work, but since it's one of the biggest global issues right now, I'm sure we can resource it.
