When companies start interfering with the government
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2025 4:55 am
That all sounds good. I can’t disagree with it. Better protection for citizens, transparency, freedom to move your data to other networks. But still, it’s Facebook. What are the catches to this call? New York Times tech journalist Mike Isaac breaks them down point by point.
Harmful content : If the law specifies what content can and cannot be published, Facebook can more easily protect itself if something (inevitably) goes wrong. They only have to refer to the law.
Protecting elections : Facebook has a hard time recognizing political ads on the network. Again, if it’s enshrined in law, Facebook can more easily point to it if it goes wrong. “We have to follow the law.”
Privacy and data protection : Facebook has grown enormously by collecting data from users when there was little to no legislation. If more legislation is now introduced in addition to the AVG/GDPR , this means a higher threshold, especially for smaller companies. Facebook is large and rich enough to be able to comply with the privacy legislation of every country. The legislation not only protects citizens, but also Facebook's business .
Data portability: Mike Isaac argues that this position may be the one that stands the most for Facebook. Of course, it sounds very transparent and open to give users the freedom to move their data to other networks. It is also a way to indicate that Facebook (which owns Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp) does not have a monopoly. As Facebook works to connect the messaging services of its various networks, it may also become more difficult to break Facebook up into smaller companies. Isaac concludes: this point is enough to show that Facebook is putting its best foot forward, but no more than that.
Who's going to pay for it?
And then another issue: who is going to pay for the implementation and enforcement of this legislation? At the moment, an organization like Facebook is responsible for enforcing its own rules. If an independent body has to take over, should the governments (and therefore: the taxpayers) pay for this? And, if the companies pay for it themselves or contribute to it, then you can imagine that this is more difficult for small startups as opposed to a large corporate like Facebook.
I was following all kinds of discussions around Zuckerberg's opinion piece on regulation, and spotted a quote from economist b2b email list Stigler (from 1971 ) on Twitter: “ Every industry or occupation that has enough political power to utilize the state will seek to control entry. ”
In other words: a party like Facebook can use the power of the government to shape laws and regulations in such a way that they benefit themselves.
The importance of companies
This discussion is part of the tension between companies, the government and society. Think of Rutger Bregman , who called on large corporations and billionaires to simply pay their taxes, instead of donating money here and there to causes they themselves consider important.
And think of the rise of purpose marketing : companies that want to do good for society. Like Shell, where you can now pay 1 cent extra to fill up CO2 neutral. This is of course a nice development, but “doing good” is not the primary goal of a commercial company. It is for governments.
I think it is good that there will be (global) legislation. It is also obviously good that Facebook will take more care of the privacy and security of users. Although Zuckerberg may have good intentions (who knows?), it remains important to distrust large companies like Facebook (but also Google, Amazon etc.). Unlike governments, companies always have a greater interest than the customer/humanity, and that is making money. Keep that in mind when CEOs of large tech companies come with idealistic messages and propose new legislation.
Harmful content : If the law specifies what content can and cannot be published, Facebook can more easily protect itself if something (inevitably) goes wrong. They only have to refer to the law.
Protecting elections : Facebook has a hard time recognizing political ads on the network. Again, if it’s enshrined in law, Facebook can more easily point to it if it goes wrong. “We have to follow the law.”
Privacy and data protection : Facebook has grown enormously by collecting data from users when there was little to no legislation. If more legislation is now introduced in addition to the AVG/GDPR , this means a higher threshold, especially for smaller companies. Facebook is large and rich enough to be able to comply with the privacy legislation of every country. The legislation not only protects citizens, but also Facebook's business .
Data portability: Mike Isaac argues that this position may be the one that stands the most for Facebook. Of course, it sounds very transparent and open to give users the freedom to move their data to other networks. It is also a way to indicate that Facebook (which owns Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp) does not have a monopoly. As Facebook works to connect the messaging services of its various networks, it may also become more difficult to break Facebook up into smaller companies. Isaac concludes: this point is enough to show that Facebook is putting its best foot forward, but no more than that.
Who's going to pay for it?
And then another issue: who is going to pay for the implementation and enforcement of this legislation? At the moment, an organization like Facebook is responsible for enforcing its own rules. If an independent body has to take over, should the governments (and therefore: the taxpayers) pay for this? And, if the companies pay for it themselves or contribute to it, then you can imagine that this is more difficult for small startups as opposed to a large corporate like Facebook.
I was following all kinds of discussions around Zuckerberg's opinion piece on regulation, and spotted a quote from economist b2b email list Stigler (from 1971 ) on Twitter: “ Every industry or occupation that has enough political power to utilize the state will seek to control entry. ”
In other words: a party like Facebook can use the power of the government to shape laws and regulations in such a way that they benefit themselves.
The importance of companies
This discussion is part of the tension between companies, the government and society. Think of Rutger Bregman , who called on large corporations and billionaires to simply pay their taxes, instead of donating money here and there to causes they themselves consider important.
And think of the rise of purpose marketing : companies that want to do good for society. Like Shell, where you can now pay 1 cent extra to fill up CO2 neutral. This is of course a nice development, but “doing good” is not the primary goal of a commercial company. It is for governments.
I think it is good that there will be (global) legislation. It is also obviously good that Facebook will take more care of the privacy and security of users. Although Zuckerberg may have good intentions (who knows?), it remains important to distrust large companies like Facebook (but also Google, Amazon etc.). Unlike governments, companies always have a greater interest than the customer/humanity, and that is making money. Keep that in mind when CEOs of large tech companies come with idealistic messages and propose new legislation.