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

111–120 of 290 posts

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

#111

Post by iamacyborg »

jkelleyrtp wrote: post #28

From the one dissenting statement by the FTC board: -- > The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce. "all Documents Relating to the Company’s or any other Person’s strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to: a) business strategies or plans; b) short-term and long-range strategies and objectives; c) expansion or retrenchm…

> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.

Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.

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

#112

Post by cj »

akersten wrote: post #99
Despegar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“A Brief Overview of the Federal Trade Commission's Investigative, Law Enforcement, and Rulemaking Authority”

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authori...

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

#113

Post by anonfornoreason »

asciident wrote: post #35
kodah wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I'd like to go back to an age before social media. It seems social media has had limited substantive success for anyone and has really created more problems than it's worth. Historically I've avoided expressing my views on abolishment but now people are trying to develop fear-mongering strategies around decentralization, so here I am back at abolition. I'd love to find a happy medium but I don't think it's…

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.

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

#114

Post by kdkdjhsbsthrow »

jonplackett wrote: post #103
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…

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 bit and are continuously working on it how on earth is that allowed or okay?

Enough. It needs to end. Personal data rights now

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

#115

Post by Despegar »

akersten wrote: post #99
Despegar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's in the press release:

>The FTC is issuing the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose.

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

#116

Post by duskwuff »

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 why they'd be included.

Gab, Parler, and Rumble are all smaller social media sites targeting the alt-right. They're so much smaller than any of the services being investigated that I feel like even mentioning them here is a dog whistle.

LinkedIn is explicitly targeted at adult professionals. That puts it a bit outside the scope of the investigation as well; one of its focuses is "how [these sites'] practices affect children and teens".

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

#117

Post by ehsankia »

tape_measure wrote: post #4

Facebook, WhatsApp, Snap, Twitter, YouTube, ByteDance, Twitch, Reddit, and Discord.

Why list Facebook, then list WhatsApp, but not Instagram? Is Instagram not part of it then? If WhatsApp wasn't there, I'd assume they're both under FB but listing WhatsApp separately is strange.

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

#118

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

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.

This comment is baffling... Netflix isn't social media. It knows far less about its customers because your interactions are limited to chosing what to watch.

I don't even know that documentary you mention, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with this decision whatsoever.

(Because it's really a rerun of West Wing that got the FTC into high gear here. "Hell yeah, let's do some governing", someone shouted, and they all started briskly walking)

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

#119

Post by jariel »

jessaustin wrote: post #110
jariel wrote: post #89

And this is happening under Trump folks. He doesn't seem to be making a fuss of it either way, and he's probably had enough time to install his folks in the FTC, so I wonder what/if there's a political angle to this. There is literally no mention of 'FTC' on either CNN or Fox landing pages right now, which is a little disturbing given the days events. If someone has material information to add about the real backgrou…

...either CNN or Fox... You'll notice they've also neglected to mention the 250M people on strike in India right now and for the last several weeks . Certain reports do not harmonize with the corporate narrative.

American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them.

But as of late, there's been a lot of noise about FAANGS, and even some political issues around content, it's just odd that there isn't more widespread coverage.

I'm really curious as to the underlying impetus for this, it's not clear to me.

Zuckerberg at 'hearings' being grilled by GOP Senators about ostensible 'bias' - that is understandable, at least politically.

But these FTC moves, I don't get.

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

#120

Post by pjc50 »

skinkestek wrote: post #86
mschuster91 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but haven't Trump and especially the more rabid of his followers like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon proven why there is a need for at least some form of gatekeeping? Someone needs to filter out demagogues from public discourse. Otherwise you'll end up with a population where large parts believe that the election was "stolen" or "fraudulent", with all the consequences (like the potential for open, massive vio…

I'd like to agree with you since I dislike the current president, problem is the gatekeepers have used 4 years to prove they are almost as bad: from blatant misquoting of Trump via the whole Russian collusion on one side to mindless glorification of Trump and misquoting of Biden on the other side they've (almost?) all managed to make fools of themselves.

Quite a lot of Trump associates were jailed for Russia-related activities. The only thing that was never proven was collusion between Trump himself and Russian agents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/trump-russia-...

"While the Senate report established broad bipartisan agreement about what happened in 2016, Democrats and Republicans could not agree whether those facts added up to collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government."

... Obviously the republican side were never going to conclude there was collusion, but the alleged go between Manafort did indeed go to jail.

Post reply on HN