>I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values... As long as our governments are seen as legitimate, rules established through a democratic process could add more legitimacy and trust than rules defined by companies alone.
This is a big chicken and egg problem. Mark wants the government to set the rules but what happens when Facebook doesn't make the rules, people are elected through questionable means (notice he used the phrase 'seen as legitimate'), and those people don't want to crack down on Facebook because an unregulated Facebook is a key to them remaining in power. There is a feedback loop there that Facebook could shutoff with a single decision from Mark. It is much harder to fix that problem through government action.
--There are a number of areas where I believe governments establishing clearer rules would be helpful, including around elections, harmful content, privacy, and data portability.
Mark could do a lot on his own without waiting for government.
Mark could:
Ban harmful content, he is a US citizen and could start with keeping a tighter lid on content that doesn't conform with non extremist western values. And then integrate other value systems shortly over time.
Mark could:
get out of all election advertising and push Facebook to be a place where everyone doesn't talk about that stuff and ban targeted political adds and just do other stuff.
Mark could:
Easily respect peoples privacy. I hardened my facebook profile a while back to remove most public content and the level of granularity to the privacy controls seemed like it was intentionally made difficult to do what I was doing. Dark patterns.
Mark could show leadership. he really could, he doesn't.
Mark wants the government to enact rules that only huge established players can possibly comply with in order to stamp out competition. If FB just went ahead and did these things themselves another player could enter the field in their place.
And he wants a seat at the table where those rules are designed. It's all of a piece, Facebook's place in the law and the kind of bog-standard Econ 101 regulatory capture I'd expect from Zuckerberg.
At least people are elected, I don't remember electing anybody in facebook and I don't want facebook to decide for me what is true and what is not, certainly when I know most of them politically lean in a very obvious way.
This is a big chicken and egg problem. Mark wants the government to set the rules but what happens when Facebook doesn't make the rules, people are elected through questionable means (notice he used the phrase 'seen as legitimate'), and those people don't want to crack down on Facebook because an unregulated Facebook is a key to them remaining in power. There is a feedback loop there that Facebook could shutoff with a single decision from Mark. It is much harder to fix that problem through government action.