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

571–580 of 736 posts

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#571

Post by jxramos »

aerosmile wrote: post #568
dang wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a stub comment to hold all the replies to the parent. I did not mean to explode an offtopicness charge, and usually turn off replies for these because the same issue comes up every time and the answer is always the same. (When it comes to explaining something, the internet is stateless [1].) Forgot to do so in this case! I'll move them now. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

I get it that HN is all about minimal design, but the need for the parent post (in this and other threads) is a sign that the UI could be improved in this aspect.

Maybe for pagination purposes the multiple pages could be enumerated right after the opening header and we could spot right away the prolific set of comments a given post has attracted. That would make things pretty discoverable right off the bat.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#572

Post by nine_k »

dllthomas wrote: post #545
strbean wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piping in with a very tangential thought: Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - h…

I think your point is interesting if not conclusive, and I think your down-voters missed your final paragraph, but I think you're missing something here: > The counter-measures necessary - hermetically sealed living space, faraday cage enclosure - are so burdensome that only people who currently live in bunkers will implement them for their living spaces. There are a lot of situations we forbid activity that is diffi…

I'm afraid it's like forbidding drugs.

It definitely somehow limits their use, but anybody really interested is able to obtain them illegally, or produce them themselves.

I'm afraid the same will be true about micro-drones or whatever else the post suggests.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#573

Post by nine_k »

abecedarius wrote: post #326
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.

If you can see the data, you can share the data. Preventing sharing is exactly as possible as DRM, i.e. only doable by outlawing general-purpose computing. So while I value privacy, I'm not sympathetic to using privacy as an argument to restrict your own access to your Facebook data, for you to decide yourself on how that's shared. If you misuse your view of your friends' data, that's on you and up to your friends to…

Technically you can, but should you?

Your sharing your FB friends data with third parties, could be seen by the friends as impolite or even hostile. It's a matter of trust between friends, not technical ability.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#574

Post by mjevans »

friedman23 wrote: post #524
twblalock wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the problem. The problem is that if I export my social graph and share it with another company, it includes information about who my friends are -- at the very least, it shows that they are my friends. That violates their privacy. Maybe they did not want their relationship with me to be known outside the social network where they established it.

Im trying to understand, are you violating a friend's privacy now if you tell a random third party that you are friends with them? Example, you are chatting at a party with someone and they ask you if you know Bob since he works at your company. You say yes and you say you are good friends with him. You violated Bob's privacy here?

There is a difference between someone mentioning, with intention (that they happen to know X and implying they could offer to make that introduction), and an automated system just bulk sharing a whole address book.

If the question were framed more like:

"Do you consent to sharing your entire address book, so that we can better market to you and your friends and offer targeted ads based on that data to our real customers?"

Would most people actually answer yes?

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#575

Post by intended »

kyriee wrote: post #538
meekmind wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. It's possible to have two completely valid, objective, and opposed positions in an argument where multiple different groups have a vested interest in one position being more popular than the other. Which one is propaganda? The one you disagree with? The one that doesn't fit with your preconceived notions? The one that doesn't fit with your personality profile? Both positions? Neither position? Do we just shut…

How about a simpler principle: harm reduction. Letting people be mislead about vaccines harms people, letting people get brainwashed into mistrusting the legitimacy of their institutions harms people, letting people use their platform to incite genocide harms people. They actually have metric to measure those things, it’s just that they prefer to dial down the heat, not kill it. It’s just too good for engagement. Don…

But This IS a philosophy debate. Fundamentally what is at stake here is how western society decides free speech is to be handled, and if it can be handled at all with social media.

I urge anyone here to define metrics for harm reduction that are operationable.

If you get any far with that, then tell me how you feel if the tools that will achieve these operational metrics were inverted in their purpose.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#576

Post by intended »

strbean wrote: post #477
munk-a wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 you…

Piping in with a very tangential thought: Privacy is in the process of becoming antiquated. It is sad, but I think it is inevitable. Surveillance technology advances with technology in general, and counter-surveillance becomes more and more cumbersome. Eventually, we will reach a point where anyone can afford tiny stealth drones to watch what is happening in their neighbors' houses. The counter-measures necessary - h…

What you lose is autonomy.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#577

Post by andromeduck »

SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #515
andromeduck wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you water down restrictions like noncompetes it won't matter, the people at fb or goog would just as likely start their own

The people at google or facebook don't poses some secret talent that the rest of us do not. Most senior developers could have built what facebook and google release given enough time and money. The problem is that you simply can not keep up with 100 developers working full time building the same product as you but giving it out for free.

There's no reason why individual developers would have to compete on their own and cutting down on the immense amounts of red tape one needs to navigate to operate across friendly borders like ca/us/aus/uk/nz or even between states would go a long way to leveling the playing field.

I'd go as far as saying the first 5k of self employed income per year should not be subject to any filing/registration requirements and what registration/regulatory fees and paperwork should be exactly zero for companies with >100 employees and >> 10m annual revenue.

If we want small businesses to thrive and compete with big businesses we need to make it as frictionless as possible.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#578

Post by baybal2 »

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 doubt most lawmakers dealing with this know what Internet is, let alone API.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#579

Post by remarkEon »

jxramos wrote: post #571
aerosmile wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it that HN is all about minimal design, but the need for the parent post (in this and other threads) is a sign that the UI could be improved in this aspect.

Maybe for pagination purposes the multiple pages could be enumerated right after the opening header and we could spot right away the prolific set of comments a given post has attracted. That would make things pretty discoverable right off the bat.

Yeah this is the right solution. Just add a link to the page numbers at the top of the thread. It's unintrusive, and still follows the minimalist design tenants of this website.

Re: FTC Sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization

#580

Post by [deleted] »

ehejsbbejsk wrote: post #530
martin_drapeau wrote: post #391

I can't help but step back and look at the trade wars between the US and China. China is gaining ground fast. US on the otherhand is turning to infighting by suing FB, Google and Amazon. Countries win through innovation. It's hard to innovate with such distractions. China must be happy cheering on its tech companies while the US is on the sidelines. Go figure...

Monopoly = Lack of innovations. Isn’t Facebook the proof of that? What did Zuckerberg do since IPO? He bought a bunch of toys on shareholders’ dime. Including VR and crypto that was DOA. That said China will never catch up and it has everything to do with their political system.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN