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

91–100 of 290 posts

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

#91

Post by tekromancr »

jcjdbdndndthrow wrote: post #87

Transparency coming? How about if I see an ad I should be allowed to see who bought the ad? How about how they chose to target me? Is it because of my race or interests or gender or age? How about the option to opt out? How about the option to configure your future ad targets / attributes? How about no special black box algorithms? Past the addiction issues, how can these exist while guaranteeing no racial and other…

I get that you are using algorithm as a short-hand here; but can you elaborate and describe what type of algorithms you suggest be opt-outable?

Algorithm is a super general term, but everyone uses it to describe something super-specific. I feel like everyone sorta has their own personal definition. I am in favor, at least in principal, of legislation that would curb some of the more abusive uses of datascience; but the idea of trying to legislate "algorithms" seems... fraught.

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

#92

Post by jrockway »

laurent92 wrote: post #33
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 wonder which is worst for health. I’d say tobacco, but social media probably causes more obesity than Coca Cola itself. Also causes people to procrastinate instead of engaging in intellectual activities, especially school or work, so the cost to society might be enormous. I wonder whether this is quantifiable, but it is definitely visible. But if it slows careers, we also have to reckon it creates careers and side-…

> Also causes people to procrastinate instead of engaging in intellectual activities, especially school or work, so the cost to society might be enormous.

I doubt it. Before social media, people were playing solitaire on their computers. Before that, they were standing around the water cooler gossiping. Slacking off and procrastinating are nothing new.

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

#93

Post by andreygrehov »

nullsense wrote: post #56
LatteLazy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has trump achieved on social media?

Mostly making a fool of himself.

I agree with a sibling comment written by vkou, but I also want to add that Trump's social media strategy is to make people believe that they are smarter than him. He leverages this strategy to get consistently free advertising on pretty much all of the news agencies of the US. News agencies leverage him as a cash cow, because people love to read about stupid things done/said by public people, hence more ad revenue.

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

#94

Post by tqi »

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…

1. Who gets to decide who does or does not have merit? What criteria would you use? 2. "Rein", not "reign," and "virality", not "virility."

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

#95

Post by dadHasSpoken88 »

After a contentious few years politically, the powers that be are targeting the platforms they think are influencing people away from American political norms.

Not to say these companies should not be held accountable, but they should target the industry.

One sides political rhetoric being pushed down or up in terms of visibility can’t possibly be public preference itself. They must insist the public’s free speech include both sides.

It can’t be generational churn seeking to deprecate outdated, immoral political norms; racism and feudalism are forever.

The political class is worried their back room gerrymandered system is being end run around.

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

#96

Post by Despegar »

akersten wrote: post #80
gist wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's absolutely not an "overreach." The FTC is actually starting to do their job after decades of letting industries consolidate. Congress should increase their budget so they can do more of it.

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

#98

Post by jessaustin »

jawzz wrote: post #67

From the dissenting opinion by Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips: > These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And the orders omit other companies engaged in business practices similar to recipients, for example, Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr, not to mention other firms the data practices of which have drawn significant government concern, like…

Hey that sounds good! They can issue another order next month, etc. Why did he dissent?

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

#99

Post by akersten »

Despegar wrote: post #96
akersten wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's absolutely not an "overreach." The FTC is actually starting to do their job after decades of letting industries consolidate. Congress should increase their budget so they can do more of it.

Frankly, the order is one step short of "copy your Shared drive to a hard disk and mail it to us, we'll take care of the rest."

I'm genuinely interested in what US Code permits the FTC to ask for such a trove of company information and strategy. My suspicion is that they're reaching. We can talk about whether we feel it's an overreach or not - you clearly feel the opposite of me - but I hope someone can chime in with the actual mandate or code.

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

#100

Post by kdkdjhsbsthrow »

tekromancr wrote: post #91
jcjdbdndndthrow wrote: post #87

Transparency coming? How about if I see an ad I should be allowed to see who bought the ad? How about how they chose to target me? Is it because of my race or interests or gender or age? How about the option to opt out? How about the option to configure your future ad targets / attributes? How about no special black box algorithms? Past the addiction issues, how can these exist while guaranteeing no racial and other…

I get that you are using algorithm as a short-hand here; but can you elaborate and describe what type of algorithms you suggest be opt-outable? Algorithm is a super general term, but everyone uses it to describe something super-specific. I feel like everyone sorta has their own personal definition. I am in favor, at least in principal, of legislation that would curb some of the more abusive uses of datascience; but t…

Agree it is hard but important to do to avoid discrimination. It’s less “regulating algorithms” and more “protecting personal data and access”.

Google and other big data co’s should not be allowed to profile unregulated and that’s exactly what they are doing.

I think a reasonable solution is that if a company is using someone’s “personal data” (legal definition pending) to configure/curate/personalize/uniquely-alter their experience in any way, that they allow the consumer or user to change those settings.

Configuration variables will open up transparency and is the first step to having a personal data right.

If an “Algorithm” is too complex to allow a user to configure (black box), they need to provide a way to opt-out to a general organic / main audience one then.

Post reply on HN