[cherrycherry98]

Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for regulation for years. He wants this for two reasons:

1. Abdicating responsibility so that when the public or politicians complain about Facebook hosting or not hosting some content he can say it's not his problem, he follows the law.

2. The second is for regulatory capture. Once a social network gets a stigma of being uncool, people move on to the next thing. His status and net worth are tied up in an entity he must aggressively defend against becoming the next MySpace. If he can't buy out upstarts anymore because of antitrust then the next best protection is to make it so difficult to build a new network without a team of lawyers and moderators that no one would even think about doing it.

[scotuswroteus]

Mark Zuckerberg has also been opposing regulation for years, which means you need to qualify your statement: Mark Zuckerberg has been pushing for his preferred regulation as the only regulation, for years. That's nice. Me too. Neither serves the country.

[adolph]

> Abdicating responsibility

Is it avoidance or asking for a democratic process to provide guidance? For example, yes automakers did push for a lot of rulemaking that cemented the car's position in transportation and yes a rule about driving on the left or right side is better decided by the community of drivers represented by their government, not GM alone.

[fleddr]

Good points. I violently agree that regulation favors Big Tech, instead of harm them.

But I still believe there's a category of societal issues that are extremely hard to codify into rules, even if Facebook would be morally sound. It would still be hard or impossible.