61–70 of 122 posts
* Gets $5 billion fine for sharing data with "researchers" * FTC: "Now FB, don't you go sharing data with researchers again. You are responsible for preventing scraping of user data" FB: * consents * * Proceeds to not share data with researchers * FTC: * Shocked pikichu face *
* Gets $5 billion fine for sharing data with "researchers" * FTC: "Now FB, don't you go sharing data with researchers again. You are responsible for preventing scraping of user data" FB: * consents * * Proceeds to not share data with researchers * FTC: * Shocked pikichu face *
The word "researchers" is doing a lot of work in your comment. What's being researched is important and the FTC makes the distinction in their statement, "good-faith research in the public interest".
“The FTC received no notice that Facebook would be publicly invoking our consent decree to justify terminating academic research earlier this week.” Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive. What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do? I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exa…
I’m no expert but I think this actually is what banks do? The regulators can’t give them a definitive answer in advance, but they can hire former regulators and get an idea of what the regulators will find favorable, and make sure that announcements of new initiatives won’t be a complete surprise to the regulators. But maybe I’m just misinterpreting something half remembered from a Matt Levine column.
In those cases showing the effort that you are engaged in getting there helps, you make an interpretation and go with it, but you might need to change when there is clarity on the proper interpretation, banks are looking at what other banks are doing, external specialists are hired. But it still remains messy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "researchers" is doing a lot of work in your comment. What's being researched is important and the FTC makes the distinction in their statement, "good-faith research in the public interest".
A bit of an odd one for me. Is the FTC in the business of deciding what research is "good faith" and "in the "public interest"? Could a company rely on such designation from them in the future when making decisions?
"The FTC is a bipartisan federal agency with a unique dual mission to protect consumers and promote competition."
“The FTC received no notice that Facebook would be publicly invoking our consent decree to justify terminating academic research earlier this week.” Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive. What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do? I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exa…
I’m no expert but I think this actually is what banks do? The regulators can’t give them a definitive answer in advance, but they can hire former regulators and get an idea of what the regulators will find favorable, and make sure that announcements of new initiatives won’t be a complete surprise to the regulators. But maybe I’m just misinterpreting something half remembered from a Matt Levine column.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit of an odd one for me. Is the FTC in the business of deciding what research is "good faith" and "in the "public interest"? Could a company rely on such designation from them in the future when making decisions?
It's a government commission. That's it's entire purpose. "The FTC is a bipartisan federal agency with a unique dual mission to protect consumers and promote competition."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The $5B fine comes with a lot of enforced changes to the company's operations: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-i... Though it does tend to have fewer regulations than the EU, the claim that this settlement has resulted in no operational changes does not appear to be true.
I read the linked PR--I am curious to see if these restrictions really protect consumers. My cynical side imagines these restrictions were written with input from FB and that they will find ways around them. But I'm cautiously hopeful.
With so many whistle blowers it is now clear that FB does not want to eradicate any political party’s misinformation campaigns. They know they are much better off going with the flow, become a valuable tool for the powerful and gain market access and dominate. In a way, I feel the American government also wants FB to do the same as it advances the US centric world order. If there is a global monopoly. American wants…
Do you honestly want that entities like FB or Google would filter political speech? Would filter speech in general, weeding out what they'd find wrong? I'm fine with FB or twitter or whatnot adding their epistemic status banners, like "incorrect according to current scientific consensus". Doing more would, to my mind, produce seriously more harm than good. It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to fo…
The problem is, from an European perspective, the US concept of "free speech". Allowing hate (e.g. swastika flags), a putsch attempt or outright lies ("Big Steal") to be shown and supported publicly and not acting against it is only emboldening those who spread this kind of content.
I won't deny that Germany has a problem with a tiny but vocal minority that denies vaccinations. But in the US, it's half the country that fell to the propaganda because no one nipped it in the bud while it was still possible!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you honestly want that entities like FB or Google would filter political speech? Would filter speech in general, weeding out what they'd find wrong? I'm fine with FB or twitter or whatnot adding their epistemic status banners, like "incorrect according to current scientific consensus". Doing more would, to my mind, produce seriously more harm than good. It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to fo…
> It's like painkillers: when the society uses technology to forget that certain parts of it feel unhealthy and hurt The problem is, from an European perspective, the US concept of "free speech". Allowing hate (e.g. swastika flags), a putsch attempt or outright lies ("Big Steal") to be shown and supported publicly and not acting against it is only emboldening those who spread this kind of content. I won't deny that G…