Shouldn't they rather be banned from running political ads for repeatedly breaking the law?
Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
51–60 of 156 posts
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#52This company really is a complete and utter dumpster fire.
I don't know about that. The firm I work at constantly loses talent to it.
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy has a decade plus vendetta against Facebook [0] and posts in all these threads. While I respect that, I wouldn't read too much into this comment. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3029872
I read the comment you linked. They seem to be eloquent and have good reason to dislike Facebook. Other commenters seem to agree with their views as well. I’m not sure what your intention is here, but this makes it feel like you’re taking a stance FOR Facebook/Meta and trying to discount numair’s feelings about FB which seem valid. This reads like a bot/paid commenter trying to de-legitimize real and honest discussio…
I just noticed his username because I’ve seen it so often in these threads about Facebook. And it seems dishonest for him to level accusations while carefully wording his comment to sound like an insider.
I posted the link for context. FWIW I agree with him on most points, and I’ve just sent traffic to his 10 year old post disparaging Facebook, so if I’m a paid shill I’m pretty bad at it.
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#54From that PR it seems partial compliance is what got them burned. They obviously knew what ads were political because they put some information about them up, but not all. If they had simply not complied at all and tried to blame their customers for not classifying the ads correctly, it might have gone a bit better in their favor. Related, it's still insane that companies can basically argue "this ad that thousands u…
> If they had simply not complied at all and tried to blame their customers for not classifying the ads correctly, it might have gone a bit better in their favor This would have been blatant contempt of court. What they did was slightly less blatant.
How so?
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
To actually impact Facebook and spur positive change they'll need to impose a much higher penalty - perhaps this is out of the domain of what courts can reasonably enforce and we need the legislature to take action.
If a single executive goes to prison for something like this, even just for a few months, it will drastically reduce the willingness to break the law from these companies no matter how huge they are.
My thoughts exactly. Meta appears to be willing to throw any amount of cash at a problem -- how many executives are willing to be put in jail for the same goal? May be time to strengthen the underlying legislation to include criminal charges for repeat-repeat offenders at scale.
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#56How much money does meta even make from political ads? Why would they even want to deal with this?
I do not think it is about that. Chan-Zuckerberg initiative donated about half
a billion to finance elections infrastructure in 2020. It may be about power but certainly not about money
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#57With a fine per violation of $10,000 who cares? They say Meta did hundreds of them... so a few million dollars. What's that, two engineer years?
Maybe time to rethink the way fines are determined. I’d be very much in favour of the “swiss model” for traffic fines - based on your income. You did X wrong, here’s the set price from our catalogue vs. you did X wrong and based on your earnings, here’s what you owe.
Fines for GDPR violations work that way too. A severe violation can be penalized with "a fine of up to €20 million, or 4% of the firm’s worldwide annual revenue from the preceding financial year, whichever amount is higher." https://gdpr.eu/fines/
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#58From that PR it seems partial compliance is what got them burned. They obviously knew what ads were political because they put some information about them up, but not all. If they had simply not complied at all and tried to blame their customers for not classifying the ads correctly, it might have gone a bit better in their favor. Related, it's still insane that companies can basically argue "this ad that thousands u…
They need to argue that, because otherwise it would eat into their bottom line to the point of unprofitability. You can't run a service for billions of people with less than 100k employees that also has an editor review everything.
Billions of people are not buying Facebook ads.
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#59How much money does meta even make from political ads? Why would they even want to deal with this?
Bloomberg spent enough money to give every US citizen $1000000 on his last presidential run!
(Not really… there were just some newscasters that were really bad at math)
But he did spend like $1B as just one candidate in the primaries.
Re: Judge rules Facebook parent Meta intentionally violated campaign finance laws
#60From that PR it seems partial compliance is what got them burned. They obviously knew what ads were political because they put some information about them up, but not all. If they had simply not complied at all and tried to blame their customers for not classifying the ads correctly, it might have gone a bit better in their favor. Related, it's still insane that companies can basically argue "this ad that thousands u…
They need to argue that, because otherwise it would eat into their bottom line to the point of unprofitability. You can't run a service for billions of people with less than 100k employees that also has an editor review everything.
If it's unable to comply with the law and stay profitable, then maybe they should go out of business.