Kind of weird to see WhatsApp on that list but not Netflix. I wonder how much Netflix has managed to stave off scrutiny simply by creating the Social Dilemma documentary.
FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
71–80 of 290 posts
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#72Why did they decide to loop in Discord? If this is about targeted ads the Microsoft should have been included, tired of all the spyware on Windows 10.
I am also curious why they decided to also include discord considering so far there monetization strategies so far has been to sell stuff to users, instead of sell their uses.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#73Kind of weird to see WhatsApp on that list but not Netflix. I wonder how much Netflix has managed to stave off scrutiny simply by creating the Social Dilemma documentary.
It's a list of companies which do not charge end-users. Netflix requires a subscription to view anything, complies with regulations about region-specific copyrights, and has zero deals with third parties.
Their business model is simple. They're TV, on the internet. They buy or make tv shows, and display them to you for a fee. They're not a "platform", they're just a cable TV service.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#74Kind of weird to see WhatsApp on that list but not Netflix. I wonder how much Netflix has managed to stave off scrutiny simply by creating the Social Dilemma documentary.
Uh why would it be on there?
It doesn't have ads, and no user generated content. Boundlessly maximizing individual engagement is hardly in their interest, whereas with the ones on the list it's literally the entire business plan.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#75Something 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 seems interesting - clearly the friction in sharing everything with everyone is far lower online than before. Before, you had to consume finite resources (time, energy, postage stamps, etc.) to tell someone else about something. This gave a natural rate limit. As a thought experiment, what if the degrees of separation were less rigidly enforced, but people's "power of voice" decays the further it goes from those…
Friction is exactly what I believe the end answer is for social media, fake news, viral video, etc.
Prior to the Internet, all communication included substantially larger amounts of friction. Broadcasting your opinion required acquiring TV, Radio, or Newspaper time/space. Sure there were low cost alternatives like standing in the public square and shouting your beliefs, but that is a far cry from tweeting out something hateful from the comfort of your couch while you eat pizza and watch unlimited streaming video content.
The friction was both a drag on productivity AND a safety mechanism to prevent mass spread of inaccurate or low quality content. I feel like the Internet removed all of that friction which is great in many cases, but particularly bad for accuracy of information. It's like the gossip that used to spread through towns by word of mouth, can now become truth within days just by going viral. And once enough people hear the same thing, isn't it now true?
Perception is reality. Just look to the divisions in the world. Each side when talking amongst themselves has one truth while the opposing side has a completely different one. Doesn't matter which truth is accurate when both sides are unified in their belief that it is their side's story that is correct.
Friction is necessary, to at least slow the contagion of inaccurate information. Right now the incentives are misaligned. Viral content that makes the consumer feel good provides the most economic return for companies like Google and Facebook. While the system is setup to reward this, how could you expect a profit seeking business to do anything else but optimize for it?
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't each administration appoint the chairman? That seems similar to saying the Supreme Court is independent. Maybe on paper, but certainly not statistically or in practice.
The commissioners are appointed for seven year terms, there have to be at least two members from each party, and both Democrats voted yes on this action. So while you're right that it's not entirely independent, in general (and definitely in this specific case) it's not right to see it as an extension of partisan politics either.
> there have to be at least two members from each party
Not true. There must be at most three members of any political party. There aren't required to be at least two of one party, and nothing in the law requires members of either major party. In practice, it's always 3-2 with either D or R being 3 and the other 2, but that's practice, not law.
It could be 2 Republican Party, 2 Libertarian Party, 1 Constitution Party, under the law.
Of course, if a President nominated toward that pattern, even if they had a friendly Senate to confirm them, they'd need a majority strong enough to be able to hold together without defections on other legislation, because the breach of convention would be punished mercilessly by even the least ideologically opposed members of the opposite major party.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commissioners are appointed for seven year terms, there have to be at least two members from each party, and both Democrats voted yes on this action. So while you're right that it's not entirely independent, in general (and definitely in this specific case) it's not right to see it as an extension of partisan politics either.
So then not Independent. if it was independent it would not have members of either party. it is a bipartisan political entity used as a weapon by both corrupt and morally bankrupt political parties
It is “independent” not of partisan politics, which is impossible for any organ of government, but independent of direct Presidential control despite operating within the executive branch.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commissioners are appointed for seven year terms, there have to be at least two members from each party, and both Democrats voted yes on this action. So while you're right that it's not entirely independent, in general (and definitely in this specific case) it's not right to see it as an extension of partisan politics either.
> there have to be at least two members from each party Not true. There must be at most three members of any political party. There aren't required to be at least two of one party, and nothing in the law requires members of either major party. In practice, it's always 3-2 with either D or R being 3 and the other 2, but that's practice, not law. It could be 2 Republican Party, 2 Libertarian Party, 1 Constitution Party…
Absolutely true, and I guess it is important to distinguish between established conventions and legal requirements these days.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly making a fool of himself.
Bypassing the traditional media. That's the real reason they hated it. They were no longer gatekeepers of the narrative.
Of course, but haven't Trump and especially the more rabid of his followers like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon proven why there is a need for at least some form of gatekeeping?
Someone needs to filter out demagogues from public discourse. Otherwise you'll end up with a population where large parts believe that the election was "stolen" or "fraudulent", with all the consequences (like the potential for open, massive violence) that entails.
Re: FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services
#80Here is the actual order (PDF warning): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/6b-orders... I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of homework to do in 45 days, and is essentially the FTC asking for not only these companies' "secret sauce" but also their confidential bookkeeping. I would be astounded if none of them challenged this order. For example, r…
I will say maybe not bad the deadline. Why? Well my theory is that legal fees and help would be higher (that's right higher) if a longer time period was given. Seems counter intuitive but that's my way of looking at it. (I guess in short maybe a version of 'work expands to fill the time available for completion something like that). That said I don't feel bad for these companies at all. They have plenty of resources…
The 45-day thing is a minor tickle, I shouldn't have lead with it.
My point is that to me it feels like this Order is a huge overreach of authority, and whether you personally do or don't feel sympathy for a certain company does not change what the government should and should not be able to ask of a company in the general case.
Reading the document, the demands are wide and reaching. I would like to know how much of what they demand is actually part of the FTC's authority for what they are allowed to require companies to provide.