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

151–160 of 290 posts

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

#151

Post by rileymat2 »

duskwuff wrote: post #116
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…

> The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies It's almost as though the majority of the Commission recognizes that its resources are limited, and that going on a wild goose chase investigating a bunch of smaller social media companies would simply ensure that nothing would be accomplished. Apple isn't even a social media company. I have no idea wh…

> Apple isn't even a social media company

It is not primarily a social media company but they have a big portfolio which includes social features, one example, I can link friends to my apple watch exercise app.

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

#152

Post by nalekberov »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #113
asciident wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I like social media, and get a lot of benefit from it. I like that it's free and supported by targeted ads, rather than a paid service. Since we disagree, and I imagine there are many people with the same opinions as both you and me, why not make it opt-in, so you only encounter social media if you choose to make an account, and then still only see it if you go to it and/or install it intentionally? Wait, that's h…

How do I opt-out my young child, who is part of a generation that if they don't opt-in are subject to intense social stigma? I mean I know how the mechanics work, but we are talking about applying "old curmudgeon who doesn't know modern life" views on a new generation. I don't think you succeed here (I am not weighing in on whether or not we SHOULD do this btw) without going all-in.

Modern life is not all about being part of social media. Thanks to social media younger generation now are more depressive than ever.

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

#153

Post by tannhaeuser »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #113
asciident wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I like social media, and get a lot of benefit from it. I like that it's free and supported by targeted ads, rather than a paid service. Since we disagree, and I imagine there are many people with the same opinions as both you and me, why not make it opt-in, so you only encounter social media if you choose to make an account, and then still only see it if you go to it and/or install it intentionally? Wait, that's h…

How do I opt-out my young child, who is part of a generation that if they don't opt-in are subject to intense social stigma? I mean I know how the mechanics work, but we are talking about applying "old curmudgeon who doesn't know modern life" views on a new generation. I don't think you succeed here (I am not weighing in on whether or not we SHOULD do this btw) without going all-in.

We're long past mere social stigma; even before coronavirus, school classes used WhatsApp for coordination, home assignments, exam reads, etc.

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

#154

Post by ummonk »

true_religion wrote: post #73
ummonk wrote: post #71

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.

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.

We all pay for Amazon Prime, and yet Amazon is on there.

Netflix is a video streaming service which will "collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information". It will "determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers". It will "apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information". It will "measure, promote, and research user engagement". And "their practices affect children and teens".

Netflix is responsible for an immense amount of screentime, and its algorithms are designed to maximize that screentime to reduce subscriber churn.

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

#155

Post by rsynnott »

jedberg wrote: post #21
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.

> For example, I doubt you and I are two degrees away. I would have never seen this.

Well, then, you'd never have seen this terrible idea, and nor would basically anyone else. So, the terrible idea, paradoxically, works, by keeping people from seeing terrible ideas!

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

#156

Post by stale2002 »

zwm wrote: post #30
stale2002 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> I think the flaw is to compare old medium to today's technology.

Courts apply laws to new technology all the time. And in this situation, it is very obvious that the courts would rule government restrictions on social media, that make it illegal for people to broadcast on social media, would be unconstitutional.

> What can we try then

Well we can't ban people from using social media, or for broadcasting to many people. That would very obviously be unconstitutional.

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

#157

Post by tt433 »

jessaustin wrote: post #104
tt433 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you need to be Trump or a Trump supporter to find personalized ads offensive and unwelcome. I think there's pretty bipartisan agreement it's getting a little out of hand. For instance, when I was under 21, I often got ads for alcoholic beverages, even though those services knew my exact date of birth. Why was I given those ads? At the time I had no way of learning why.

The example you give seems to be an ad that wasn't sufficiently personalized. Was that also "offensive and unwelcome"? Everyone should just use uBlock Origin and be done with it.

I'm with you on adblockers at least. I believe it was mobile youtube ads, which I've seen be highly personalized before. I do remember the video was one that minors were more likely to watch (gaming). My concern is that the alcohol companies were actually targeting an underage demographic, which is actually not illegal, since their industry "self regulates" their advertising.

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

#158

Post by jonplackett »

kdkdjhsbsthrow wrote: post #114
jonplackett wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes please. I’d like to add: no targeting of any kind for political ads - you wanna say something? You have to say it to everyone.

When these companies say fluffy things like: “race/gender/x/y/z is a protective sensitive category prohibited from advertising to directly” Does anyone actually believe they don’t provide ways for advertisers (including nefarious ones) to do so through inferring it? Or, that their own internal tools and algorithms to curate personalized content follows these rules? Even if they try and only discriminate a tiny little…

Do they even say that? In adwords I’m pretty sure I can just select a gender to advertise to

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

#159

Post by kodah »

asciident wrote: post #147
kodah wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media isn't opt-in though. Facebook has routinely collected data on non-Facebook users, my name/likeness/content can appear on social media without my consent, and there are hardly controls for protecting such things in any meaningful sense. I deleted Instagram months ago and I have friends that have routinely told me that profile is still up, just in a limited capacity. How is this opt-in? An even better exam…

You're talking about 3 very different things here. 1) You're saying social media isn't opt in because they're tracking users off of their social media platform. This doesn't have anything to do with social media, but rather the pages you're going to have chosen to use a service provided by Facebook to track users. They could use another behavior targeting service, but chose Facebook's. 2) You're saying Instagram dele…

1. That is still Facebook violating my privacy. How about if I create a virtual profile of you on a page of my website, list it in a search engine, and provide unverified (and likely false) information about you that can also be damaging? Would your feelings change or would you continue to let me run your public profile out of principle as you've described here?

2. I have already answered this. I deleted it. I'm happy to share the email that shows I deleted it, not deactivated. I additionally deleted my data as well, so I have two emails to share if you so desire.

3. There are websites that do this and it's not considered censoring. Reddit regularly has rules against doxxing or naming as well as proper attribution. People have gone as far as to setup bots and alerts to remove information or give proper attribution. This idea is not revolutionary and your presentation of it is maximalist at best.

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

#160

Post by gipp »

nalekberov wrote: post #137
akersten wrote: post #54

Here 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…

They have billions in cash, but they can't afford to hire enough people to finish this task in 45 days? I believe Requirement 12.d is not necessarily about "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?". Somehow FTC should have clear picture of "WHAT-WHY-WHEN" in order to come to conclusion. We use digital social networking services every day, we still have nearly zero knowledge of how do their platforms ac…

Hiring people on a 45-day notice would only make it take longer...
Post reply on HN