Slashdot Mirror
Regulate Facebook Like AIM (vice.com)
New submitter gooddogsgotoheaven shares a report from Motherboard arguing why the U.S. government should regulate Facebook like AIM: Sixteen years ago, the FCC approved a merger between American Online and Time Warner, but with several conditions. As part of the deal, AOL was required to make its web portal compatible with other chat apps. The government stopped AOL from building a closed system where everyone had to use AIM, meaning it had to adopt interoperability -- the ability to be compatible with other computer systems. The FCC required AOL to be compatible with at least one instant messaging rival immediately after the merger went through. Within six months, the FCC required AOL to make its portal compatible with at least two other rivals, or face penalties. The FCC's decision changed how we communicate with each other on the internet. By forcing AIM to make room for competition, a range of messaging apps and services, as well as social networks emerged. Instead of being limited to AIM, people who used AOL's portal could choose other platforms.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
If Facebook were forced to make room for other services on its platform in the same way AOL made room for other chat apps, new services could emerge. "Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right." Of course, people can opt out of Facebook and choose to use other, smaller social networks. But those businesses are essentially unable to thrive because of the hold Facebook has on how we communicate online. All our friends and family are already on Facebook, and because the platform is not regulated to allow competition, it's incredibly difficult for other, newer ones to emerge.
NO! NO!
because Mark Zuck will be the President in 2020 !!
Any new regulations issued by the FCC under the current leadership will be heavily weighted in favor of the corporations, not the people.
I'd much rather the consumers stop using closed systems, and/or demanding interoperability than the government regulating it. I know this is a fantasy. It would be nice if the consumers had higher expectations of companies like AOL and Facebook. I'll get off my soap box now and go back to my coach with my beer..and get off my lawn.
Sent from my TARDIS
If the FCC hadn't regulated AOL and AIM, AOL would still be running a closed ecosystem that we'd all be suffering under today. Thank God, the FCCs attempt to make AOL better actually just hastened their demise. I don't know that the world would be a better place without Facebook, but it might be. Go for it FCC!
Just like no one was "forced" to use AT&T pre-Modification of Final Judgement.
Break them up. Google, Facebook, all of them. They all need to be busted into a million pieces.
Regulating monopoly power is a good use of the Federal government. I suspect there's too much money from the "free" marketeers right now but things have changed in the past.
I talked to FB and AOL user about this idea. This is how they reacted:
FB User: I like it.
AOL user: Me too
As the summary indicates, this requirement on AOL was part of a deal to allow a merger between Time-Warner and AOL. As far as I know, Facebook isn't looking to merge with anybody, so what would be the basis for dictating how they run their business?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
AIM is going away...
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
I do have a Facebook account, and yet I have no fucking idea what you are talking about here. In what way does Facebook "have a hold on how we communicate online?" Almost everyone I know (it's way over 95%) has SMS at a minimum, and the kind of people that I actually have anything nontrivial to say anything to, all have email. By the time you add email to SMS, I think I'm at 100%. I am drawing a blank on anyone for whom I would have to use Facebook to contact them.
You're talking like they're a monopoly but I'm not even sure they're on the map. The only kind of communication for which Facebook seems relevant, is between advertiser and consumer.
Not that I don't approve of big companies using standards so that their tools are interoperative with what the rest of us use! But if you're going to draw a loaded gun (and that seems to be what you're talking about) the use of force needs to be justified. If you're telling me your mom insists on only using Facebook and refuses to use a phone or email, then she's the problem, not Facebook. Maybe let's put the gun back into the holster, ok?
Ask Ash-Fox about his NDA lie + dns fuckups rotflmao https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11188265&cid=55322595/ as he's a no degree liar.
"Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook" --Matt Stoller
I have accessed Facebook through Firefox and Chromium--although it's true that it started making Konqueror lock up a while back.
Heck, Facebook doesn't even make a web browser. So where's the comparison to AIM?
And if you're going to say it's about the mobile Facebook app, that's nonsense. I've never accessed Facebook on mobile through anything other than Tinfoil.
Offtopic
Another moron who doesn't understand English moderating in an English speaking forum.
The point is that, for open internet, you should regulate the service provider, not the content provider.
I'm so glad every day that I don't use this bullshit.
Don't tease me like that.
"Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook," Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, said. "Having them control and mediate the structure of those relationships -- that's not right."
Why and why? If we're going to decry the existence of monocultures, the agriculture industry is a much better place to look first. There are serious potential consequences to limiting bio-diversity unlike the consequences to limiting diversity in playgrounds.
Facebook has shadow profiles for people that haven't signed up yet.
Thank you, Mr. Jesus.
Open markets institute sounds like a lobbying force for companies who want to monetize off of Facebook. What benefit do I get to have other companies access Facebook's platform? None that I can see.
Facebook is some not simple messaging app. Think about all the personal data that could be compromised if you let every single hacker in the world have access deep in to your API's. Facebook is the world's biggest diamond mine.
Instead I think Facebook should be dismantled and banned outright. Just like the credit reporting agencies.
if you can run OS/2 applications under Windows but not Windows application under OS/2 then 99% of consumers will pick Windows.
So why have people chosen Windows over GNU/Linux? Many Windows applications work in Wine, but GNU/Linux applications didn't work in Windows until very recently (WSL for Windows 10), and GUI applications for GNU/Linux still don't.
Almost everyone I know (it's way over 95%) has SMS at a minimum
Cellular carriers in the United States charge per message for SMS: 10 cents to send and 10 cents to receive. Facebook doesn't charge for Facebook Messenger. Nor does Microsoft charge for Skype text chat.
"Facebook has to allow people to access their relationships however they want through other businesses or tools that are not controlled by Facebook" --Matt Stoller
I have accessed Facebook through Firefox and Chromium [...] Heck, Facebook doesn't even make a web browser. So where's the comparison to AIM?
It's not necessarily the browser as much as the extensions. Facebook doesn't really like extensions such as Fluff Busting Purity. Its FAQ page mentions occasional "big changes that Facebook makes to break features of FBP."
Omg Milo is that you? I thought Bannon was supposed to be trolling tonight???
The barrier to entry to compete with AT&T was: "Put in telephone poles and/or tear up the sidewalks to put in cabling along every right-of-way in every city, county, and state in the entire country. Wire up every home, office, and factory in the country for your new service. Then invent and manufacture the switches and exchanges to go with them, buy the real estate these require, and install."
The barrier to entry to compete with Facebook or Google is: "Have a good idea. Get some VC. Open an AWS account." If you want to be really cheeky, you could even run your Google competitor in Google Cloud.
Imagine all the people...
Facebook is not healthy do for you. It's not good to know that much about everyone around you embrace a little bit of mystery in your life
No. They aren't. Some aren't even allowed on Facebook. Facebook is a closed world. Fuck Facebook.
AIM is now dead. Take the penalties and survive.
Just like every nation has learned from Ukraine's giving up it's nukes-- it won't happen again.
Well regulations usually are shit and cause businesses to fail.
Facebook has APIs for everything... WTF is this all about? Has no one noticed that you can send Facebook messages through Skype? :)
Anyone can build their own Facebook messenger or pretty much anything they want.
Here:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7...
https://developers.facebook.co...
You're welcome.
FB snoops , filters, decides who you communicate with through 'newsfeed'.
The PYMK feature is essentially a way to keep you entangled in the past.
Zuck is a psychology major and knows all the games.
I regained happiness, focus and purpose by just stopping using FB completely.
Why this won't happen...
You Mean Kill it? Yes please
Jews believe this of others they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple):
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis. Zucker @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
What World-famous Men have said About the Jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MYPzKNQUE0/
There are three types of people who call themselves Jews:
1. True Torah [Sephardic] Jews: these are the descendants of Prophet Jacob-Israel (Jacobites or Israelites) (about 5%-10% of all Jews)
2. Khazarian or Ashkenazi Jews: these are the descendants of a Turkic idol/phallic worshiping tribe who migrated to Russia in the 7th Century A.C. and whose nobility converted to Judaism in the 8th Century A.C. and now inhabit mostly Europe. (about 90%-95% of all Jews)
3. Zionist Jews: these are the ones from the 2 above who are pretending to be Jews for political reasons but whoâ(TM)re are actually Illuminists-Luciferian-Masonic-Satanists as Harold Wallace Rosenthal admits in this interview.
They are led by the neo-Pharisees (occult-priest-banklords). They want to establish a Zionist Luciferian state from the Nile to the Euphrates from where they plan to rule the Earth. The new Israeli Supreme Court funded by the Rothschilds Banklords is full of Masonic Symbols, just like the B.I.S. Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, which is the Mother of All Private Central Banks.
The hexagram symbol on the Israeli flag is the ancient Star of Moloch, a Satanic-Baal deity to which people were sacrificed. There is no such thing as a Star of David which the modern Jews have been fooled into believing; however, the True Torah Jews are not fooled by the Zionists Illuminatis and you can visit their websites for more info .
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off
Most modern US cellphone plans include texts for nothing.
Plans priced to replace a landline do. Plans designed to augment one do not. Some home ISPs' pricing plan provides a landline at negligible or no extra charge: Internet with TV and Internet with voice cost about the same as Internet alone. Subscribers to those ISPs may see duplicative phone service with unlimited voice and unlimited text as an unnecessary charge and decide to use a mobile phone on a sub-$10/mo pay-as-you-go plan for urgent calls, with home or restaurant Wi-Fi instead of cellular data. These pay-as-you-go plans include a pittance of voice minutes or texts, with additional outgoing voice minutes, incoming voice minutes, outgoing texts, or incoming texts at 10 cents each.
Qt, GTK, SDL, and other libraries are ported to Windows.
But building and testing a Windows application built with one of these libraries still requires the program's maintainer to have a valid Windows license for the environment on which to run the tests. Technically, the building part doesn't, as GCC can be built on GNU/Linux as a cross-compiler to target Windows, but testing still does. And no, the OEM license that came with the Windows PC that you bought, wiped, and Linuxed doesn't count, as OEM Windows is licensed to run only on metal, not in a virtual machine.
Good point. I do notice on some developer lists the main developer will put up a release candidate that he built on Linux for Windows and ask for testing and other times ask for help with Windows. These are usually text mode programs but I'd think that it could work the same for graphical programs if there is a demand.
Of course demand is the question. There's lots of native windows programs and for people who don't care about propriety software...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I hate to tell you, but VoIP is not "landline".
It is if you have DSL. The voice service bundled with DSL isn't VoIP but POTS. The voice service bundled with cable and FTTH isn't, but it's still a landline in the broader sense of a voice service over a wired physical layer that can send and receive calls to traditional phone numbers at little or no additional charge.
Yes, you can find "nickle and dime you to death" plans, but choosing poorly is still a choice.
If one sends and receives few enough SMS messages and few enough voice calls while away from home that the monthly charge is stlil less than the monthly charge for a unlimited voice and SMS plan, I fail to understand how it's necessarily "choosing poorly".