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

171–180 of 290 posts

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

#171

Post by notyourwork »

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…

I agree with a lot of these but the option to opt out would be your choice already by stopping use of the service. Or are you thinking that by opting out you could pay for the service instead?

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

#172

Post by nalekberov »

gipp wrote: post #160
nalekberov wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

Hiring people on a 45-day notice would only make it take longer...

No it would not.

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

#173

Post by phatfish »

cactus2093 wrote: post #36
devmunchies wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to think that people might look back at how much time and attention people from 2010 to 2020 spent on their device and think how backwards we were. Like how "dumb" past generations were for putting lead in gasoline.

Seems more likely to me that all the overreaction to social media will be what is viewed as silly and old-fashioned. History is absolutely full of very similar examples of people freaking out over how new mediums like novels or bicycles or radio or rock music or whatever are a waste of time and/or are destroying the children's minds.

There are also examples of when ignoring addictive behaviour -- or just pretending there isn't a problem -- leads to disaster.

The world wide web was the new medium, social media is the attention grabbing (and addictive for some) hook that enables a couple of large corporations to charge more for advertising impressions.

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

#174

Post by wil421 »

jrockway wrote: post #92
laurent92 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder which is worst for health. I’d say tobacco, but social media probably causes more obesity than Coca Cola itself. Also causes people to procrastinate instead of engaging in intellectual activities, especially school or work, so the cost to society might be enormous. I wonder whether this is quantifiable, but it is definitely visible. But if it slows careers, we also have to reckon it creates careers and side-…

> Also causes people to procrastinate instead of engaging in intellectual activities, especially school or work, so the cost to society might be enormous. I doubt it. Before social media, people were playing solitaire on their computers. Before that, they were standing around the water cooler gossiping. Slacking off and procrastinating are nothing new.

Did the water cooler company hire people to see if they could keep people at the water cooler longer? Did solitaire copy what’s in your copy/paste pad and secretly send it to Microsoft?

Did solitaire buy and kill FreeCell to prevent its popularity from surpassing it’s own?

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

#175

Post by renewiltord »

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…

Can you justify why Amazon should be covered and Apple shouldn't be? Your justification applies to both.

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

#177

Post by ineedasername »

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…

I see no problem focusing on the largest companies that rely on personal data.

The "10 entities limit" doesn't seem like an inappropriate use of a loophole here. You have draw the line somewhere. Look at the largest and use them to make the general guidelines (or new laws) that will govern all companies. Then look at other companies as needed

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

#178

Post by shagie »

ummonk wrote: post #154
true_religion wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a list of companies which do not charge end-users. Netflix requires a subscription to view anything, complies with regulations about region-specific copyrights, and has zero deals with third parties. Their business model is simple. They're TV, on the internet. They buy or make tv shows, and display them to you for a fee. They're not a "platform", they're just a cable TV service.

We all pay for Amazon Prime, and yet Amazon is on there. Netflix is a video streaming service which will "collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information". It will "determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers". It will "apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information". It will "measure, promote, and research user engagement". And "their practices affect childr…

Amazon owns Twitch... which is a completely different beast than Amazon Prime Video.

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

#179

Post by duskwuff »

renewiltord wrote: post #175
duskwuff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Can you justify why Amazon should be covered and Apple shouldn't be? Your justification applies to both.

Amazon owns Twitch, which is both a social media site and a video streaming service.

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

#180

Post by asciident »

kodah wrote: post #159
asciident wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about 3 very different things here. 1) You're saying social media isn't opt in because they're tracking users off of their social media platform. This doesn't have anything to do with social media, but rather the pages you're going to have chosen to use a service provided by Facebook to track users. They could use another behavior targeting service, but chose Facebook's. 2) You're saying Instagram dele…

1. That is still Facebook violating my privacy. How about if I create a virtual profile of you on a page of my website, list it in a search engine, and provide unverified (and likely false) information about you that can also be damaging? Would your feelings change or would you continue to let me run your public profile out of principle as you've described here? 2. I have already answered this. I deleted it. I'm happ…

I didn't see the other post and I believe you. If you say you deleted it, and they didn't, I think we'd both agree that's a problem they should fix or change.

I think the issues you're describing don't have anything to do with the social media service aspect, but more like bad practices of an online company. So I'd agree we should push for online tech companies to fix many issues, including security issues and offsite tracking and proper attribution, etc.

But I don't believe in your original argument that we should abolish social media, because a lot of people want to use social media and it's not your right to stop them.

Post reply on HN