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

131–140 of 290 posts

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

#131

Post by _2d30 »

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…

By some metrics, iMessage is the biggest messaging service in the US. Arguably, from the POV of the FTC as a US regulator, WhatsApp shouldn't be included but Apple SHOULD be.

This is of course ignoring other social features of Apple products such as Game Center, Find My Friends and Facetime.

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

#132

Post by bilbo0s »

duskwuff wrote: post #125
edoceo wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LinkedIn is social, and would have made a nice even 10 - which would trigger an oversight event.

Edited my post with some more details. While LinkedIn is a social media site of sorts, it's outside what I believe the focus of the investigation to be.

LinkedIn has a lot of teens on it actually. Very talented teens some, others are teens of average talent level. But they do have teens. They are also about 3 times bigger than discord. I think you could argue either way, because there may be a larger absolute number of teens on discord? The numbers are not broken out enough to tell. But given the nature of what we're dealing with, I wouldn't discount the idea of them not wanting anyone taking a closer look at what they are doing.

I myself am always suspicious of the "Think of the children!!!" crowd.

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

#134

Post by krapp »

blackrock wrote: post #128

What does this order do? HN should have a submission statement, that’s pinned at the top of the comments. So we can review that without visiting the source site.

>HN should have a submission statement, that’s pinned at the top of the comments. So we can review that without visiting the source site.

No, stop being lazy or paranoid or whatever and just RTFA. The entire premise of this forum is to engage with the content presented and to discuss it, to gratify intellectual curiosity. Pernicious habits like only reading the title or wanting a Cliffs' Notes version just sucks what little soul this place has left out of it.

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

#135

Post by pjc50 »

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…

How much of that can just be copied from investor relations documents, and things already submitted to the SEC?

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

#136

Post by oarsinsync »

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…

It’s great that you opted in, shared your address book and uploaded a load of pictures and meticulously tagged your friends in the pictures.

It’s not great for anyone in your address book or photos that didn’t opt in.

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

#137

Post by nalekberov »

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 actually work.

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

#138

Post by topkai22 »

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'm not sure that would do much to reign in virality given the number of mega accounts there are- how much of twitter is n+2 from Donald Trump, for example?

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

#139

Post by pjc50 »

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…

You cannot jail people for things that were not illegal at the time they did them.

There's a lot of anti Facebook hyperbole in this thread; please stick to feasible and reasonable demands and we're more likely to get them.

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

#140

Post by CyberDildonics »

vineyardmike wrote: post #11
CyberDildonics wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was a legal rule for the internet it would make it illegal for most people to communicate with each other. I don't think this idea is well thought through. That would actually be the government regulating speech and arguably freedom of assembly.

Its not regulating the speech, its regulating the audience. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.

You have the right to be heard by people that want to hear you.

Nothing says you have to be broadcast or promoted and nothing says you can impose on people who don't want to hear you, but the government telling people they can't talk to certain other people is not the same thing.

Also, in another comment you said "This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer."

Is this sarcasm and you are contradicting yourself or do you actually think it would have been great to suppress BLM organization and protests?

Post reply on HN