Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

lawandcrime.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#71

Post by zelphirkalt »

x3blah wrote: post #57
tsimionescu wrote: post #37

It's interesting that the site presenting this story has, by their own declaration, 382 different marketing-related cookies, which you are required to accept with no alternatives if you want to browse the site. I'm not trying to say that they are not entitled to report on FB's privacy violations or something, they are reporters and it is very good that they are doing so. It's just amazing to what extent journalism si…

"Old newspapers could only dream of the kind of advertising revenue that sites like this probably have." Actually they are struggling for ad revenue hence all the third party crud in their web pages. Many of them allege that companies like Facebook and Google have "stolen" their ad revenue. Some complained of Craigslist taking away their classified ads business. Old newspapers, particularly local ones, are going out…

For newspapers: Ask for donation or promote subscriptions, almost no one will mind, but don't spam us with ads and tracking, without consent. Then we can talk. Unless you honest up, there is nothing we will talk about.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#72

Post by nindalf »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #71
x3blah wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Old newspapers could only dream of the kind of advertising revenue that sites like this probably have." Actually they are struggling for ad revenue hence all the third party crud in their web pages. Many of them allege that companies like Facebook and Google have "stolen" their ad revenue. Some complained of Craigslist taking away their classified ads business. Old newspapers, particularly local ones, are going out…

For newspapers: Ask for donation or promote subscriptions, almost no one will mind, but don't spam us with ads and tracking, without consent. Then we can talk. Unless you honest up, there is nothing we will talk about.

I disagree.

If you're speaking about people on HN, then you're possibly right. (Debatable how much though)

But people in general will mind being asked to open their wallets, to enter their payment details into a website that they don't want to trust with sensitive info while they don't mind seeing (and ignoring) a few ads.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#73

Post by duru3b3jr »

bobthepanda wrote: post #59
x3blah wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Old newspapers could only dream of the kind of advertising revenue that sites like this probably have." Actually they are struggling for ad revenue hence all the third party crud in their web pages. Many of them allege that companies like Facebook and Google have "stolen" their ad revenue. Some complained of Craigslist taking away their classified ads business. Old newspapers, particularly local ones, are going out…

> Old newspapers are going out of business thanks to competition from ad-supported websites that operate as middlemen for news delivered via internet. And when the newspaper goes out of business, will the aggregators just sprout newsrooms to replace their free sources of information? I doubt it. Aggregation of news only works if there's news to aggregate. We have already seen local and hyperlocal news wither on the v…

You're arguing a different point than the person you're responding to. You're correct of course, on the point that aggregators only function so long as they have content to aggregate. But that doesn't mean that aggregators don't also promote further market consolidation. I don't think many people are arguing that publications like AP, Bloomberg, NYT, Reuters, Fox News (I know I know, but you can't pretend they aren't a major org), CNN, etc. are dying. What's dying is /local/ newspapers that might not offer robust world views but nonetheless often represent the most comprehensive source for stories of local significance like police controversies, local government corruption, community happenings, etc.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#74

Post by zelphirkalt »

nindalf wrote: post #72
zelphirkalt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For newspapers: Ask for donation or promote subscriptions, almost no one will mind, but don't spam us with ads and tracking, without consent. Then we can talk. Unless you honest up, there is nothing we will talk about.

I disagree. If you're speaking about people on HN , then you're possibly right. (Debatable how much though) But people in general will mind being asked to open their wallets, to enter their payment details into a website that they don't want to trust with sensitive info while they don't mind seeing (and ignoring) a few ads.

Actually I was only taking about myself and how I see it, but perhaps this view is more prevalent on HN than in other communities, yes. I'd like to think that is, because people on HN are more technical and more informed about how this stuff works, than the average Internet visitor.

Anyway, they could offer people to support them for example via GNU Taler, which aims to keep the "buyer" anonymous and the seller not anonymous, so the problem of entering payment detail is out of the way, using a free software solution.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#75

Post by fastball »

noad wrote: post #64
tsimionescu wrote: post #37

It's interesting that the site presenting this story has, by their own declaration, 382 different marketing-related cookies, which you are required to accept with no alternatives if you want to browse the site. I'm not trying to say that they are not entitled to report on FB's privacy violations or something, they are reporters and it is very good that they are doing so. It's just amazing to what extent journalism si…

It's not journalism, it's the web. Every protocol and layer in the stack has been subverted to the will of advertisers and trackers. The whole platform is a total nightmare. The standards bodies were completely subverted by corporations, most notably the W3C. When I try to explain to young people that I spent years browsing the web before there was any advertising at all on it they often don't believe me.

I use Brave. What advertising?

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#76

Post by antjanus »

greenyoda wrote: post #9
antjanus wrote: post #5

it's frustrating. 5 billion for a fine over the course of 8 years of operation? They made $17 billion this quarter .

The judge did threaten Facebook with harsher treatment if they ever ended up in his court again. From the end of the court decision: > The Court ends by noting that under the Stipulated Order it retains jurisdiction over this matter, including to enforce its terms. See Stipulated Order at 5. In the event that the parties return to this Court because the United States alleges—once again—that Facebook has reneged on it…

The problem is that threatening doesn't mean much. The $5b isn't much in the grand scheme of things, and I doubt we'll be as "lucky" to get a judge that feels similarly next time.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#77

Post by antjanus »

justapassenger wrote: post #50
antjanus wrote: post #5

it's frustrating. 5 billion for a fine over the course of 8 years of operation? They made $17 billion this quarter .

Made? Revenue is not profit. Their net income was just under $5B this quarter Edit: quarter, not half

You mean that this quarter alone, they made $5B in pure profit? I'm not sure if that helps any argument against what I said.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#78

Post by antjanus »

will4274 wrote: post #23
antjanus wrote: post #5

it's frustrating. 5 billion for a fine over the course of 8 years of operation? They made $17 billion this quarter .

I disagree in part. The articles notes: > The settlement also obligates Facebook to pay $5 billion in civil penalties; that penalty is significantly larger than the next-closest penalty the FTC has ever won–which topped out at $22.5 million. With $5 billion, I believe we're within a factor of ten of the right fine, which isn't something I always believe about these settlements. Compared to e.g. Janet Jackson at the S…

That is a good point. We're getting closer to fines that actually hurt the companies enough not to do it again.

Not there yet, but closer.

The frustrating part is that they kept doing it even after they said they wouldn't. And FB amassed a sizeable revenue breaking a law while snuffing out competition, growing bigger, and reaping the benefits whilst still paying a fine that was essentially "worth it".

I heard in a podcast the idea how the next "Facebook" can't do what FB did to grow -- because all that stuff is now regulated, closely watched, and fined.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#79

Post by csharptwdec19 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #59
x3blah wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Old newspapers could only dream of the kind of advertising revenue that sites like this probably have." Actually they are struggling for ad revenue hence all the third party crud in their web pages. Many of them allege that companies like Facebook and Google have "stolen" their ad revenue. Some complained of Craigslist taking away their classified ads business. Old newspapers, particularly local ones, are going out…

> Old newspapers are going out of business thanks to competition from ad-supported websites that operate as middlemen for news delivered via internet. And when the newspaper goes out of business, will the aggregators just sprout newsrooms to replace their free sources of information? I doubt it. Aggregation of news only works if there's news to aggregate. We have already seen local and hyperlocal news wither on the v…

> And when the newspaper goes out of business, will the aggregators just sprout newsrooms to replace their free sources of information? I doubt it.

Well that's the longer term problem. Eventually because they run out of real news sources, they have to start regurgitating -some- form of content.

You see it with some of the 'news' sites for tech, especially the 'older' ones. At some point (usually after original owners have left, as they were the ones with a passion for actual journalism) you see the content goes from investigative and genuinely curious to a state where you can tell that just about every article was a regurgitated PR.

IOW in the long term this is a bad thing, as it means that you'll see more 'sponsored' news in the future.

Re: Judge approves Facebook's settlement with FTC over ‘stunning’ privacy violations

#80

Post by Bombthecat »

antjanus wrote: post #5

it's frustrating. 5 billion for a fine over the course of 8 years of operation? They made $17 billion this quarter .

Hmm Facebook paid quite a lot of fines in the last two years. (worldwide) would be interesting how much, when you add them up.
Post reply on HN