FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization • Hacker News Board

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#341

Post by sib » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 10:55 PM UTC

victor9000 wrote: post #236

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.

You encrypt user data and provide decryption keys to the service once a user actually signs up.

"As a user, I want to be opted out of this 'feature' by default"

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#342

Post by frenchy » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #294

uoaei wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install the uMatrix extension. Blacklist anything from facebook.com and fb.com. Now their tracking pixels can't see you.

Blocking domains works right now but what if Facebook register a new domain? Or a thousand new domains? Or they proxy traffic through a site owner's domain? What's needed is a way to block Facebook's privacy invasion regardless of the tech they use. That is unlikely to be a problem solved by tech. It needs enough people, including governments, to tell Facebook they're unhappy with Facebook's activity.

As far as the cross-site tracking goes, they'd actually need to get all the other websites to update the facebook JS code they include, and it would only work until the tracking blockers updated their lists again.

I agree that tech is the wrong place to be solving this problem, but it can work in a rather cludgy way.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#343

Post by actuator » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 10:57 PM UTC

I will be really surprised if this succeeds. FB can just point to Tiktok and show that an upstart can succeed as there is nothing tying someone to FB properties just by virtue of them being together.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#344

Post by glenstein » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

theanarcrist wrote: post #171

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…

I agree and find the attempt at a breakup a bit frustrating. This is an action that could have profoundly disruptive effect and it's not really clear what the positives or negatives would be. For instance, FB has invested massively in trust and safety people operations and AI. What happens to that investment when IG is spun off? Laying out laws and regulations so the market works as intended (no doubt with adjustment…

>For instance, FB has invested massively in trust and safety people operations and AI. What happens to that investment when IG is spun off?

If what's being said is that those investments are important and necessary, then we should be looking for reasons to sustain them that aren't just about validating the continued existence of a monopoly.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#345

Post by kevan » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #237

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…

> Amazon promoting its own brands isn't much different from a supermarket offering its own brand items. The huge difference here is that when you go into Walmart you don't announce to the company what you want to buy.

The difference might not be as large as you think: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/14/opinion/bluet...

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#346

Post by vladmk » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #302

vladmk wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.

I'm sure Facebook buys all the data on you that it can, which in America is an amazing amount of information. Your auto mechanic is likely already selling what is being done to your car to CarFax, etc.

Ok so what about the bank then? Hell equifax had a horrible social security outbreak yet somehow idiots are still mad at Facebook vs the government

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#347

Post by root_axis » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

polote wrote: post #316

When the same thing is going to happen to the Match group (Tinder, Okc, hinge, match,...)? In their case this is 100% obvious that they buy any new dating app in order to keep their monopoly and the result is clearly bad for the users

It's lacking a political angle.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#348

Post by vladmk » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

arilotter wrote: post #295

vladmk wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the accidental straw-man is actually your reply. People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. Should Facebook have all the info your bank has for instance? Or auto mechanic, your realtor? This is a slippery slope of logic of shared data for all leads to.

> People give Facebook their access willingly and they know what information they input into Facebook. I don't think this is true. Facebook tracks your activity all over the web on thousands of third-party sites and builds a unique profile to identify you, without regard for you having an account. You can't opt out of this if you don't have a Facebook account. Some of these "social graph" features will do things like…

I guess that’s what separates me and you I have more faith in humanity. I think all this false outrage about data being sold on systems that are free to use will die down and people overtime understand that the Internet doesn’t run on pixie dust and fairy magic.

PS by fighting this point you’re merely pointing out that giving more businesses this data isn’t a good idea

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#349

Post by sib » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

bilal4hmed wrote: post #109

jb1991 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iMessage, Slack, Teams These don’t really compete with WhatsApp, which is cross platform, not tied to an employer, doesn’t require an invitation, subscription, friend network, setup to use, among other things.

Line, Viber, Telegram, Signal, Matrix etc etc.....there is so much competition in the messaging space.

Not to mention WeChat with 1.2B MAU.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#350

Post by colejohnson66 » Wed, Dec 09, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #301

a_crc wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that big of a difference? You still have to go to the one section of walmart where they stock the cheese or car batteries or whatever. Walmart can set up their own shelves to emphasize their own brands if they want. If you pay with a credit card at walmart they can collect the same data about your purchase history as amazon would as well.

Walmart paid for the products on their shelves. Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon. The difference, in case it's not clear: Walmart is the manufacturers' primary customer, so it's irrelevant from their point of view what products Walmart chooses to sell in its stores. The third-party sellers are the manufacturer's customers. The manufacturers still get paid either way. But we're not co…

> Amazon does not pay for most of the products you can buy on Amazon.

“Sold and shipped by Amazon.com” means that Amazon actually bought that product and is storing it at their warehouse.