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

FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 290 posts

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#21

Post by jedberg »

kaiju0 wrote: post #3

Something big is brewing. I think there is going to be a big push to reign in social media. I've thought long about this and can only think of one way to regulate them. I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. After that the content is not seen no matter how popular. It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. To increas…

> I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation.

That's an absolutely terrible idea. For example, I doubt you and I are two degrees away. I would have never seen this.

I doubt I have two degrees of separation from most of the interesting content posted on this site.

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#22

Post by roywiggins »

vineyardmike wrote: post #11
CyberDildonics wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was a legal rule for the internet it would make it illegal for most people to communicate with each other. I don't think this idea is well thought through. That would actually be the government regulating speech and arguably freedom of assembly.

Its not regulating the speech, its regulating the audience. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.

The first amendment also protects freedom of association. You don't have a right for people to hear you, but the government doesn't have an unlimited power to restrict your ability to actually reach people.

If government prevents people hearing you speak, that's a pretty serious curb on freedom of association.

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#24

Post by offtop5 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #7

From the article: Amazon.com, Inc. [twitch], ByteDance Ltd., which operates the short video service TikTok, Discord Inc., Facebook, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Snap Inc., Twitter, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and YouTube LLC. The FTC is seeking information specifically related to: how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; how they determine which ads…

>how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information;

Facebook can definitely figure out your race , and the race of who you've dated.

I told this story here before but back in the early days of facebook, I had dated a Korean girl for a brief period of time and then the moment we broke up via facebook messenger, I start getting spammed with ads for dating websites featuring Asian women ( maybe the algorithm wasn't advanced enough to figure out my ex was Korean specifically).

I think a lot of this is just posturing, I don't see Joe Biden being as harsh on social media as Trump has been. This might be a final hurrah against social media as conservatives have been very upset with them lately.

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#25

Post by mrkramer »

TikTok already released details of its recommendation algorithm [1] so it's out there in public domain and free accessible. I'm not a lawyer but some of this information that FTC is demanding are trade secrets of these companies and they are not willing to give them just like that.

[1] https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-vide...

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#26

Post by ardy42 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #9
kaiju0 wrote: post #3

Something big is brewing. I think there is going to be a big push to reign in social media. I've thought long about this and can only think of one way to regulate them. I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. After that the content is not seen no matter how popular. It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. To increas…

This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer.

> This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer.

I'm not so sure about that. That kind of policy would definitely put the breaks on uncoordinated viral peer-to-peer spread, but that just might lead to resurgence of coordinating organizations acting as clearinghouses for such things.

That could be good, at least in places with decent civil liberties, since I believe broadcast speech is bit like code: it's better when there's some peer review and sanity checks before it's distributed.

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#27

Post by devmunchies »

mrkramer wrote: post #13

"Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter..." How convenient.

your point? You think it's ironic?

These social media companies are the most effective channels for any organization to reach the widest audience. Which validates why the FTC has social media accounts and why the FTC is investigating them.

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#28

Post by jkelleyrtp »

From the one dissenting statement by the FTC board:

--

> The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce.

   "all Documents Relating to the Company’s or any other Person’s strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to: a) business strategies or plans; b) short-term and long-range strategies and objectives; c) expansion or retrenchment strategies or plans; d) research and development efforts; e) sales and marketing strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to, strategies or plans to expand the Company’s customer base or increase sales and marketing to particular customer segments (e.g., a user demographic); f) strategies or plans to reduce costs, improve products or services (e.g., expanding features or functionality), or otherwise become more competitive;"
> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.16 And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications.

> The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information.

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#29

Post by offtop5 »

KukiAirani wrote: post #19

This is heartening news. We are finally approaching the moment where addictive social media is handled with the same seriousness with which big tobacco was treated.

I doubt it, much of this is just going to be finger waving. Case and poin the FTC sued the Match Group for fraud, but I can guarantee you nothing's going to come of it. If you could pay a $5 million fine after increasing your valuation by billions, you'd do that too.

If anything I think there's a massive need for individuals to regulate their own social media. Since I know these things can actively harm me, I don't use social media or online dating. But I also wouldn't pass laws stopping people from using this stuff.

It's like eating junk food, sure the world would be a better place if no one ate McDonald's, but everyone has a right to eat as many big Macs they want to

Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

#30

Post by zwm »

stale2002 wrote: post #15
vineyardmike wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not regulating the speech, its regulating the audience. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.

Thats basically the same thing. For example, if the government made newspapers illegal, that would technically be "limiting the audience", but it would still be unconstitutional.

I think the flaw is to compare old medium to today's technology. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What can we try then iterate?
Post reply on HN