Facebook's seized files published by MPs • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#131

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #77

btown wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world in which companies are not allowed to selectively withhold proprietary data from some competitors, and form partnerships with others, is a world that suboptimally promotes innovation and economic growth.

That's a statement that requires evidence and proof. Market fundamentalists are so used to advancing arguments like this without being challenged that they have become almost completely divorced from the scientific method entirely. Maybe being forced to share this kind of proprietary data, in this specific type of circumstance, will actually promote a more diverse marketplace with higher innovation. Maybe it won't. E…

You're not a "fundamentalist" because you mention the fundamentals of a field of study. It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic.

And given that the person you're responding to is stating something that most economists would agree with, I think the impetus is on you to tear it down with "the scientific method" if you think the prevailing wisdom is wrong.

TLDR: don't provide proof for flat-earthers.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#132

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:13 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #130

breischl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out…

Agreed. Facebook purchased third-party data to guide their acquisition strategy. Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions. The selective access to competing apps, based solely on this information, is antitrust though. If the apps violate rules that apply to everyone, that's different, but that doesn't appear to be the case? Edit: turns out Onovo had access to specific, proprietary data, acqu…

> Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions

Facebook bought Onavo in 2013 [1].

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#133

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #80

btown wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world in which companies are not allowed to selectively withhold proprietary data from some competitors, and form partnerships with others, is a world that suboptimally promotes innovation and economic growth.

A world in which data monopolies and platform companies selectively withdraw much smaller companies' access to their services based on whether they wish those companies to fail or not probably isn't one which optimally promotes innovation and economic growth though.

Facebook is not a data monopoly, unless you take "data monopoly" to mean "has a set of a data that no one else does", in which case everyone is a data monopoly.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#134

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:14 PM UTC

elliekelly wrote: post #128

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...

I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.

> I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in...avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR

Because they’ve been so careful about following other laws?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#135

Post by crunchlibrarian » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #7

> Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat > there was evidence that Facebook's refusal to share data with some apps caused them to fail Stuff like this should trigger the EU Commissioner for Competition to withdraw the aut…

Anti-trust. Anti-monopoly. We needed to revive these movements five years ago.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#136

Post by bduerst » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #132

bduerst wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Facebook purchased third-party data to guide their acquisition strategy. Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions. The selective access to competing apps, based solely on this information, is antitrust though. If the apps violate rules that apply to everyone, that's different, but that doesn't appear to be the case? Edit: turns out Onovo had access to specific, proprietary data, acqu…

> Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions Facebook bought Onavo in 2013 [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...

Interesting, didn't know that. Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#137

Post by aaronmdjones » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #100

amerine wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was followed to get access to these files. What are you talking about? Regardless of your agreement with the manner of procurement, nothing nefarious was done here. This is what happens when CEOs ignore governments.

Which law? They were seized by the British government under British law, but the court order which gave the person they were seized from access to them and imposed conditions on how they were used was a US one.

That US court order has no standing in England.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#138

Post by gammateam » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

gk1 wrote: post #114

evilzuku wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing says evil more than preparing reactive PR to bury your competitors. And the nonchalant way his response sends chills down my spine. These people will suffocate innovation just to win.

> And the nonchalant way his response sends chills down my spine. CEOs of massive companies don't have time to write long and explanatory emails. They put people in charge that they trust, so they can just say one word or sentence and know that it'll get handled.

Sometimes I write some half ass objection before green lighting it just in case the convo gets leaked

idgaf though

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#139

Post by JumpCrisscross » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #136

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions Facebook bought Onavo in 2013 [1]. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...

Interesting, didn't know that. Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't?

> Did Onavo have access to data that other public BI firms don't?

Yes. Onavo built “consumer-facing apps to help optimise device and app performance and battery life on iOS and Android devices” [1] while piping their users’ data to Facebook.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/13/facebook-buys-mobile-analy...

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#140

Post by ryanwaggoner » Wed, Dec 05, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

najarvg wrote: post #120

kevmo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic growth is overrated when it only goes to 1% of people.

Hidden in a lot of these economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of trickle-down economics which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times (see - https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-eff... )

And hidden in a lot of these anti-economic growth arguments is an unstated assumption of the effectiveness of planned economies, which itself has been shown to be ineffective many times :)