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

381–390 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#381

Post by namanaggarwal »

uoaei wrote: post #238
namanaggarwal wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Known backdoors? Can you back that up with a source? Custom implementation is likely because they want to strike a balance between security and usability.

https://thehackernews.com/2017/01/whatsapp-encryption-backdo... In short, their implementation allows to change the encryption keys of users without their consent to arbitrary, known keys. The protocol won't re-encrypt sent messages, but there is nothing in the protocol forcing the app to show a notification that your encryption key has changed, which amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack. Any subsequent messages sen…

I honestly think that this story (from the title) is just a clickbait. Ofcourse you need a central server to share the keys and you need to trust that central server. How do you make sure WhatsApp hasn't changed the keys in middle - there is a scan QR functionality. I honestly don't know how these articles still remain active on websites even after proven wrong and obviously clickbaity

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#382

Post by ineedasername »

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…

The link mentions adversarial interoperability for ad blockers, which made me really remember how bad the ad landscape used to be. Crazy amounts of popups, ads that crashed your browser, the explorer shell, or the whole computer, seemingly recursive popups that you had to force-quit the browser to get out of... Sure, I still use an ad blocker, but it seems like have been forced to realize that if they want any of the advertising pie, they need to meet a minimal standard of playing nice with the user.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#383

Post by bagacrap »

nickpp wrote: post #35

Monopoly of what? Some other social networks I use every day or so: Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok and various forums and communities like this one, which in my mind are pretty similar to a social network. And since WhatsApp is a chat app, how about all the other chat apps I am using? iMessage, Slack, Teams. Does this action has any merit or is it just the usual political posturing and games?

WhatsApp is a social network because it has stories.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#385

Post by Kalium »

dane-pgp wrote: post #324
spunker540 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They tried this and had to stop after “I trust Cambridge Analytica, so please send my data there”...

It's worth noting that part of Facebook's culpability regarding Cambridge Analytica is that the CA "personality survey" was able to gather "personally identifiable information such as real name, location and contact details" of participating users, and also "the app did the same thing for all the friends of the user who installed it".[0] I suppose that a lot of personal data could be gleaned about someone (and their…

Parler asked people for their SSNs, and Cambridge Analytica wasn't a household byword for invasion of privacy when people were clicking on quizzes.

So, it's worth considering that people might indeed happily sign up for a rogue node that steals their info without knowing what's going on.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#388

Post by biggermike »

aardvarkr wrote: post #319
biggermike wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 competitors are just a click away, as evidenced by how much Google pays Apple to be the default. But these aren't the complain…

> That being said, there's no reason search can't be separated from the ad business. I’m not aware of a business model that would keep a search company in business if they didn’t offer ads to go with it. On top of that, offering the ability to companies to target their ads to highly relevant consumers is incredibly valuable to our economy.

They can still sell their inventory e.g. impressions and clicks, but they wouldn't run the DSP/SSP (just like other ad supported publishers).

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#390

Post by artemisyna »

bogwog wrote: post #292
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing I have a hard time understanding, as far as I'm aware the FTC approved all this, these were not forceful takeovers. What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration?

> What would be the precedent if regulatory approvals could be challenged with a change in administration? That's like someone is approved for a license to own a gun, then that person uses the gun to commit a crime, and then their license is revoked. Then someone points the finger at whoever it was that approved that person for a gun license. What would be the precedent if a merger approval gave you a free pass to be…

I suppose the question then becomes "should the things that FB did with WhatsApp and Instagram since acquiring them be considered a crime"?

I could see eyebrows being raised around interop work, but I'm not sure about the rest.

Post reply on HN