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

FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#251

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

civilized wrote: post #233
saddlerustle wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.

But you could get your own data and the list of people authorized to see it, and pass that to a third party. If you and one of your friends both move to another network, you get to see each other's data. Any problem with this?

What if I don't want you telling folks that you are my friend? Why do you get to divulge this information to a third party that I know nothing about?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#252

Post by bilal4hmed »

KaiserPro wrote: post #211
mrlala wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp is basically the norm outside of the US from what I can tell? So yeah, there's really no "competition". Either you have whatsapp or you don't talk to people. And it's highly used for cross-business communication in Europe, I can tell you that.

> WhatsApp is basically the norm outside of the US from what I can tell? Which would mean that the lawsuit would fail. pretty much everything that happens outside of the USA is irrelevant for this lawsuit.

yeah would make more sense to break iMessage or force them to open APIs

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#253

Post by i_see_things »

saddlerustle wrote: post #222
ghufran_syed wrote: post #155

I feel like instead of pushing for the companies to separate, congress should pass laws mandating [adversarial interoperability]( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... ). Then the data (including the social graph) really would belong to the users, and facebook would have to compete with multiple other “social network clients” that would rapidly emerge. Facebook would lose some monopoly profi…

There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.

> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way.

Multiparty secure computation is one possible way. There are a few, emerging implementations.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#254

Post by simpss »

xmprt wrote: post #242
ikiris wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of amazing how most even tech people don't seem to understand this.

The comment says "there's no way." I can think of at least one which involves a user manually downloading the data and then manually uploading it to another service.

This is one of the things GDPR tries to achive.

> To further strengthen the control over his or her own data, where the processing of personal data is carried out by automated means, the data subject should also be allowed to receive personal data concerning him or her which he or she has provided to a controller in a structured, commonly used, machine-readable and interoperable format, and to transmit it to another controller.

https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-68/

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#256

Post by cblconfederate »

gfodor wrote: post #93
matchbok wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VR isn't a thing, and won't be. Just like 3d TVs. Nobody outside of tech cares about it.

If you assume I'm talking about "VR" it shows you don't really have the same mental model of what they're trying to do at Oculus. They're creating a hardware/software proxy over your senses. This is the logical endpoint of computing. VR is just another transitional bridge.

I think you re talking about neuralink and the like

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#257

Post by majani »

crazygringo wrote: post #199

Honestly, while I have my doubts about this succeeding, it nevertheless feels like the big tech suit most likely to succeed. Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. Apple isn't a monopoly in phones because of Android. And Google's search is so inherently tied to selling ads as a business model that separating them is a difficult argument -- plus search com…

Unfortunately there's literally thousands of social networking sites, chat apps and photo sharing apps out there, and many of them have millions of downloads which keeps Facebook on their toes. Facebook can easily win this based off of that technicality.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#258

Post by munk-a »

saddlerustle wrote: post #222
ghufran_syed wrote: post #155

I feel like instead of pushing for the companies to separate, congress should pass laws mandating [adversarial interoperability]( https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interopera... ). Then the data (including the social graph) really would belong to the users, and facebook would have to compete with multiple other “social network clients” that would rapidly emerge. Facebook would lose some monopoly profi…

There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.

> There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way.

If we're not okay with other companies having access then why is it okay for a single company to have that access? Do you know and trust every facebook employee including those that don't work there yet with your data? Do you trust that that data will be securely handled when the company is sold after declaring bankruptcy?

I think your objection is an accidental straw-man. I don't think it was intentionally made, it is a valid thought to ponder but it should exist independent of the question of sharing data.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#259

Post by stinkytaco »

civilized wrote: post #233
saddlerustle wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way to provide access to the social graph in a privacy preserving way. It's not okay to allow a third party to access the data your friends have shared with you without your friends consenting. Unencumbered API access to the social graph is exactly what led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and promising to restrict API access was part of Facebook's settlement with the FTC.

But you could get your own data and the list of people authorized to see it, and pass that to a third party. If you and one of your friends both move to another network, you get to see each other's data. Any problem with this?

I think it becomes a "defaults" problem. Lots of people do not understand or care about "the social graph" so when prompted for consent to allow someone else to export them in a social graph, they simply click whatever gets them into Facebook the fastest. That also has the negative effect of giving companies an out when confronted with privacy concerns. It's like shrink wrap licenses. You can always say someone agreed, even if they didn't understand it in any meaningful way.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#260

Post by oblio »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #83
dsr_ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FTC could, potentially, require: 1. That FB split into N independent companies, whereupon each share of FB would become 1 share in each of N companies. 2. That the supermajor shareholders (say, more than 10% of any company) each pick at most one company to retain that interest in, and sell off shares in the other companies until they had less than 10% of each of those). 3. That the new companies avoid overlapping…

And then it would eventually come back together. See ATT. https://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-hist...

Even better, Standard Oil.
Post reply on HN