Why Facebook ‘Welcomes’ Regulation: Mark Zuckerberg vs. Silicon Valley’s Richard Hendricks

Would you work with us in terms of what regulations
you think are necessary in your industry? Absolutely. Mark Zuckerberg is the multi-billionaire founder
and CEO of Facebook, and this week he testified before Congress, assuring lawmakers that his company will play
nice with government regulators. Ladies and gentlemen, Richard Hendricks! Richard Hendricks from HBO’s Silicon Valley is the bumbling CEO of the unfortunately named
Pied Piper. His memorable moments include evacuating his
bowels, vomiting, and then lunging into a glass wall in front of all of his workers. One is poised when being grilled congress, the other can’t even deliver a pep talk
to his staff without hurling under his desk. But our best hope for the future of the internet is with Richard Hendricks and not Mark Zuckerberg, and here’s why. We need to take a more proactive role and
a broader view of our responsibility. It’s not enough to just build tools, we need
to make sure that they’re used for good. In his testimony, Zuckerberg welcomed regulation,
and even agreed to help craft it. Mark Zuckerberg is in the same position as
the late-nineteenth century railroad tycoons. Contrary to conventional wisdom, these robber
barons embraced regulation as a way to raise the barriers to entry for
competitors who were eating into their profits and market
share. Still sporting a hoodie, Richard Hendricks
is at an earlier stage of his career. He’s trying to build a new internet in an
effort to outmaneuver Hooli, a fictional amalgamation of Google and Facebook. Hooli is the future… Even Richard’s specific approach to disrupting
Facebook is more than just TV fantasy. We could build a completely decentralized
version of our current internet. With no firewalls, no tolls, no government
regulation, no spying. Information would be totally free in every
sense of the word. Richard represents the next wave of innovation— the competitor who, if congress and the government stays out of it, will eventually erode Facebook’s market
share by offering a better product. When you add more rules that companies need
to follow that’s something that a larger company like
ours inherently just has the resources to go do and that might just be harder for a smaller
company getting started to be able to comply with. There’s a real world movement in the tech
world to build a new decentralized web that would give users actual control over
their own data, and create open platforms that aren’t controlled
by any single all-powerful CEO. One reason to bet on these real life projects
to decentralize the internet, projects like Blockstack and Ethereum, is that talented engineers are beating down
their doors, because working at Google and Facebook is
lucrative but it’s also soul killing. We’ve been given the opportunity to rewrite
the most important thing in human history and we can build it the way it should have
been all along, you know, not this shitty addictive parasite that companies like Hooli use to spy on us
exploit us. As Facebook and Congress start to write new
rules for cyberspace, all of us who believe in free expression and
permission-less innovation have a real stake in making sure that the
future of the internet remains as wide open and uncharted as possible.

65 thoughts on “Why Facebook ‘Welcomes’ Regulation: Mark Zuckerberg vs. Silicon Valley’s Richard Hendricks

  1. He also wants regulation in place so he can also prevent social media sites that have other world views. He has made it clear over and over again. That no one should be allowed to post anything that is not based on Leftist ideology.

  2. Bitcoin and Etherium also help power illegal activities on the dark web which sponsors the most disgusting parts of the human psyche to be emboldened and even be economically viable.

  3. Open and free means that we are the product not the customer. That is why we are in this mess in the first place. It shouldn't happen. I am surprised to see a libertarian believing in free meals. Regulations could limit that a little but we will still be the product forever and ever. Love it or hate it that is the reality!

  4. He builds the tools and then suggests he needs to monitor how they're used, yet it was him and his company that allowed the abuse of the tools he created and kept mostly hidden from his sucker users who gave him all the content and created all the reasons for people to come and look (ads for you when you post, and for those who read your posts that you call "friends" but in fact are selling them out).

  5. Here's the problem I see- Facebook essentially rose to their prominent position without much in way of regulation. So if you ran the scenario a thousand times, I expect a similar situation with a similar ending, with X company abusing their position and lobbying for special status.

    While we can all agree Facebook writing their own regulations is probably a bad move, I don't see how no regulation improves the outcome.

    If the fear is that an inept government will be overseeing the process, maybe the problem is with government.

    But instead of demanding better government, it is all handwavy of how a market that created this mess will somehow solve it as well.

  6. One is a fictional show. Leftist are often guilty of comparing fact agianst fantasy; which is why we make fun of them for "Rainbows and Unicorns". I don't care for Facebook or Google as they have been agressive in pushing their politics. But claiming the fantasy from a fiction show is market viable is not realisitic. It might be one day; it isn't now.

  7. Co-operating with regulations equals regulatory capture. AKA using the violence of the government against competitors.

  8. Having regulations crafted by internet providers and if mark zuckerburg isn't Carted away to prison, he should at least be kept as far as possible from writing this regulation.
    At the very least, individuals should have the right to their data being anonymous, being able to know all the data a company has on them, and be able to delete that data at will. Additionally, all individuals should have the right to opt out of targeted advertising.

  9. He says that people like himself need to be more responsible but also seems to say that he won't do so on his own. No, apparently he refuses to do what he admits is the right thing unless the government forces him to. This is why you have to take this kind of talk with a grain of salt.

  10. Ok so an actual working tech company with a robotic CEO vs a made up fake company on tv with a CEO who looks like he’s fresh out of college. Where is the reason?

  11. When the "Washington wives" attempted to pressure the music industry into censoring itself during the 1980s, I'm glad that musicians stood firmly for free speech. I'm sad that the tycoons of social-media responded so differently when their turn came.

  12. Congress should restrict Facebook's ability to collect information. They shouldn't force them to silence racist grandmas

  13. Why JP Morgan, he is more associated with banking rather than railroads. Vanderbilt is more associated with railroads.

  14. is net neutrality supported by the libertarian platform? It was a regulation to keep the internet unregulated which seems to be a contradiction.Net neutrality was at it's heart what Richard Hendricks is for. How does support of the free market without the meddling hands of government intervention reconcile this?

  15. It's unfortunate that it's too late to stop Congress from destroying the very system that made Americans more productive and now Mark Zuckerberg will have complete control of what he wants to keep under his thumb.

  16. Well, the internet started as free and decentralized and see where it has taken us. Bitcoin is starting to be centralized in China. Everything is devoured by power of capital in the end.

  17. More regulation will make internet just same as TV, i bet in the future every comment will filtered by AI.
    Which basically no freedom

  18. Robber Baron myth. Enjoy this lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw
    But note that like Vanderbilt, Zuckerberg is absolutely correct referring to regulations.
    In a free market, coercive monopolies are impossible.
    All coercive monopolies are only possible because of the hand and intervention of government.
    That hearing did not want to hear Zuckerberg's point on this matter. In Facebook they have their cash-cow, and data centre and despite how it may come across, they want to protect it – so long as they can pressure Facebook to comply; hence they'll have no problem turning it into a coercive monopoly.
    It will take Mark Zuckerberg a re-evaluation of his character to escape the trap he has been led into, and I have doubts that he'll be able to. In which case at some point he'll cash in and walk away.

  19. Ethereum is controlled by Vitalk, who can rewrite the block history and refund millions of dollars back to people. I wouldn't call that decentralized.

  20. Wait, ReasonTV is now for a free & open internet & not trusting a few big companies to keep us safe? Weren't you super against Net Neutrality because you felt these big near monopolies that have already over-regulated their own protection had our best interest at heart? You guys seem terribly inconsistent when it comes to technology.
    You also ignored regulations like the EU's GDPR that all tech companies are currently implementing. And are pretty low cost to allow users control of their own data.

  21. Except bitcoin is just centralization 3.0 if succeed at replacing Fiat.

    Centralization 1.0: concentration of wealth and power among central banks, governments, and oligarchs.

    Centralization 2.0: Concentration of wealth among data aggregators (Amazon, Google, Facebook etc.)

    Centralization 3.0: Radical redistribution of wealth to very few early perma long positions in Bitcoin (if succeeded).

  22. Did you heard about decentralized social media, which already exists? I mean Steem blockchain.

    https://steemit.com/ – was first project on Steem, but now there is more than 300 projects ( https://steemprojects.com/ ), and almost 1 mln users.

  23. Fair enough but I assume this decentralised internet would rely on peer to peer connected devices and you would never know what information is pining through your device.
    That being the case, are you happy for such an internet to exist that no one person, organisation or country can control and gives total freedom to Peodophile groups, ISIS, kidinap rings, hard drug transportation etc?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *