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

U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#71

Post by mschuster91 »

nine_k wrote: post #70
mschuster91 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Indeed, this is the problem with the European lack of notion of free speech :(

European countries have personally experienced, on our own soil, the dangers that unchecked free speech brings. The constitutions of our nations reflected learning what had led to the rise of fascism in the first place, and the need to prevent what happened from 1933-1945 from ever happening again.

Meanwhile, the US Constitution hasn't seen a substantial update in decades, much less a true reform taking into account hundreds of years of learning from history. The result is - again, from a Continental European view - a hot mess ranging from eccentrities such as voting on Tuesdays, over massive influence of Christian fundamentalism in politics despite the US being the first state in the world to not have a state religion, to a total inability of democracy to defend itself against demagogues and, in the case of Russian propaganda campaigns, even enemy hostility.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#73

Post by nocturnial »

I'm probably reading too much into this letter. They said they couldn't act because they were a third party. If you file a complaint, any complaint, they wouldn't be. They didn't need to write a letter for something that's already corrected. I think they did because they want something they can act upon.

It seems like it's spaghetti argument time, ie. throw everything against a wall and see what sticks.

You could argue that the privacy of people could be violated because the "privacy" of an entity that's public shouldn't that public according to facebook. I know, the weak point is that we can't show what privacy aspect is actually violated, but then we could argue this is reason we should investigate this.

If this was the BCP in my country, I could add other arguments about unfair competition and/or monopoly. But I'm not sure this is the purview of the US version of the BCP.

The FTC/BCP needs to follow certain rules, but this doesn't prohibit them from saying: "Hey, we can kinda work with this sort of argument, especially if you reformulate it like this"

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#74

Post by nine_k »

mschuster91 wrote: post #71
nine_k wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this is the problem with the European lack of notion of free speech :(

European countries have personally experienced, on our own soil, the dangers that unchecked free speech brings. The constitutions of our nations reflected learning what had led to the rise of fascism in the first place, and the need to prevent what happened from 1933-1945 from ever happening again. Meanwhile, the US Constitution hasn't seen a substantial update in decades, much less a true reform taking into account…

The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial.

I think that the problem of Weimar Germany was not in the unchecked circulation of Völkischer Beobachter or whatever. The problem was that the Nazi propaganda fell on intently listening ears, and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays. BTW one of the first things Hitler did when he seized power was curbing the "anti-German" public speech, along with political activity. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I see that Germany has had an enormous trauma. I understand the immediate post-war necessity of communication control. But, with all due respect, I think that the current limitations do a disservice to the German democracy, both by creating the notion of thoughtcrime and forbidden speech at all, and by hiding the real amount of problems from the society, which could otherwise more adequately react and help heal them.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#75

Post by nocturnial »

savant_penguin wrote: post #7

“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 think I'm misreading your argument because it seems to me like you're saying: "There are rules and if I don't publicly flaunt those rules like I did in the past, everything is ok?"

Don't you understand that the argument: "You're only guilty if you get caught" doesn't really resonate with most of the public? Whether or not FB talks to the FTC about certain issues has nothing to do with them breaking rules. This is not how the law works.

For example, I could call the police and inform them I was breaking into a house. I would probably get stopped and get arrested. The second time, I think to not inform the police about me breaking into a house. Does not informing the police mean I wouldn't be committing a crime? No, it doesn't.

I'm open to a discussion if you think the rules are too strict.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#76

Post by mschuster91 »

nine_k wrote: post #74
mschuster91 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European countries have personally experienced, on our own soil, the dangers that unchecked free speech brings. The constitutions of our nations reflected learning what had led to the rise of fascism in the first place, and the need to prevent what happened from 1933-1945 from ever happening again. Meanwhile, the US Constitution hasn't seen a substantial update in decades, much less a true reform taking into account…

The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial. I think that the problem of Weimar Germany was not in the unchecked circulation of Völkischer Beobachter or whatever. The problem was that the Nazi propaganda fell on intently listening ears, and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays. BTW one of the first things Hitler did when he seized power was…

> The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial.

The last substantial update was in 1971, to lower the voting age to 18. Since then, nothing was done on a federal level to deal with the load of issues that have cropped up in the meantime: a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics, equal access to abortion, unionization/worker representation, or the complete dysfunctionality of Congress which couldn't even be bothered to condemn Trump for his role in the January 6th 2021 events!

> and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays

We see something similar with the US Republican leadership unable to keep the power plays from the far-right in check. It began with the Tea Party, culminated (for now...) in the 45th Presidency and now there are QAnon believers sitting in Congress. Either Trump himself or Ron DeSantis are going to make the run in 2024 and it's by no means certain that they will be defeated again.

The US is at a crucial tipping point of history.

> But, with all due respect, I think that the current limitations do a disservice to the German democracy, both by creating the notion of thoughtcrime and forbidden speech at all, and by hiding the real amount of problems from the society, which could otherwise more adequately react and help heal them.

There is absolutely no place for right-arm salutes or calling of extermination of people to be in any part of democracy. You don't need to "heal" with this shit, the last people who tried giving Nazis concessions (aka "appeasement politics") ended with a load of V2 rockets on their roofs.

Fascism always devolves into one group of society (be it ethnic, religious or, in case of the modern far-right, sometimes purely ideological) claiming superiority - and using every tool in the book to achieve their aims.

And it's not like the old Nazis hadn't explicitly announced their aims. To quote Goebbels:

> We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem… We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.

The modern far-right acts exactly like this, and anyone refusing to learn from history will only help history repeat itself.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#77

Post by nine_k »

mschuster91 wrote: post #76
nine_k wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial. I think that the problem of Weimar Germany was not in the unchecked circulation of Völkischer Beobachter or whatever. The problem was that the Nazi propaganda fell on intently listening ears, and that the republic's administration wasn't able to fight back the Hitler's power plays. BTW one of the first things Hitler did when he seized power was…

> The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial. The last substantial update was in 1971, to lower the voting age to 18. Since then, nothing was done on a federal level to deal with the load of issues that have cropped up in the meantime: a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics, equal access to abo…

> a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics

Do you think the constitution needs a change to address that? The constitution already forbids racial discrimination and power abuse (else it won't be called abuse), etc. I think it's the legislature's job to make laws to address the current (and ever-changing) situation, and the executive branch's job to enforce these norms. I would rather keep the constitution from changing for tactical interests.

> the 45th Presidency and now there are QAnon believers sitting in Congress

Still, the power was peacefully (if scandalously) passed to the next elected President. I'd say that the system is working within the designed tolerances. I have a few thoughts about improving the election system in the US, but I don't think it has failed.

> You don't need to "heal" with this shit.

The problem is that the criminals are still citizens, still a part of the society. Seeing pus seeping from a damaged body part and saying that this shit does not need healing seems like a slightly cavalier approach to me. Even when a surgery is the best approach.

Certainly, seeing people doing things that are repulsive an dangerous is very, very, very embarrassing! But I think one thing is worse: closing your eyes to not see them, while they continue doing the repulsive and dangerous things unseen. That's one of the points of free speech.

> giving Nazis concessions (aka "appeasement politics")

Indeed. But I don't speak about any concessions, special-casing like the prewar politics did. I speak about a level playing field.

> "We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons."

These weapons won't be armed if there were not popular support :( My point is that muffing the voices of that popular support so that we, the nice educated democracy-loving people, don't hear it, may lead to a much more rude awakening than e.g. the Trump's election was.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#78

Post by TomSwirly »

unglaublich wrote: post #47
jszymborski wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they can both let the ad observer programme go on and stop the shady advertising practices.

Yes, but that's incompatible with their current existence.

If Facebook must break the law to continue to exist, then they should cease to exist.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#79

Post by TomSwirly »

savant_penguin wrote: post #7

“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…

> What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?

Yes, that's exactly how a consent decree works.

Re: U.S. FTC says Facebook misused privacy decree to shut down ad research

#80

Post by mschuster91 »

nine_k wrote: post #77
mschuster91 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US constitution has twenty seven amendments, some rather substantial. The last substantial update was in 1971, to lower the voting age to 18. Since then, nothing was done on a federal level to deal with the load of issues that have cropped up in the meantime: a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics, equal access to abo…

> a history of systematic racial, sexual identity and gender discrimination, police and judicial power abuse, voter suppression tactics Do you think the constitution needs a change to address that? The constitution already forbids racial discrimination and power abuse (else it won't be called abuse), etc. I think it's the legislature's job to make laws to address the current (and ever-changing) situation, and the exe…

> Do you think the constitution needs a change to address that?

Yes, because only a constitutional amendment can set federal minimum standards that cannot be undermined by state or other, lower government. And given how state governments are already busy with trying to pass antidemocratic measures - not just the usual gerrymandering stuff, but giving legislatures the power to override Electoral College votes in case of fraud "allegations" - this is a real need!

> Still, the power was peacefully (if scandalously) passed to the next elected President.

It barely was passed peacefully. Had a sole heroic police officer not lured the crowd away, they would have gotten (and probably hanged) Pence - it was a matter of sixty seconds. And anyway, it's hard to speak of a pass of power when large parts of the Republican voter base don't see Biden as legitimate President, and a not-negligible portion is delusional enough to believe QAnon claims that Biden is serving in a replica White House and Trump is still President.

> But I think one thing is worse: closing your eyes to not see them, while they continue doing the repulsive and dangerous things unseen.

It's not about closing one's eyes to not see the pus. It is to pass a clear message to people on the fringe: this sort of opinion is not welcomed in society and you will get punished for it. And it is also a message to democratic people: democracy is worth fighting for, fighting against those that threaten its existence.

Post reply on HN