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

Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 335 posts

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#281

Post by scrum-treats »

JohnFen wrote: post #259
vkou wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's built on users supplied to advertisers. --- Facebook's utility for me is now near zero, possibly negative. I'm only there because mom is there. Mom's only there because her friends are there. Moving out of that morass - at least, until mom stops using computers is impossible. At least with Amazon, Google, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, etc, I (currently) have meaningful alternatives. Network effects suck.

> I'm only there because mom is there. Why should that keep you there, though? She's your mother. Surely, you can talk with her directly even if she is on Facebook.

I'm only there because FB requires a current photo of me alongside a picture of my government issued ID in order to "regain access" to my account in order to deactivate it.

How this is legal is astonishing.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#282

Post by tppiotrowski »

themagician wrote: post #279

The privacy issues almost seem moot at this point to be honest. Everything on Facebook is either a scam, scam adjacent, or some kind of grift. It's actually incredible to see how Facebook has grown over the years. It's like the SPAM inbox in Gmail, but prettier and sprinkled with posts from "friends." Instagram has gone the same way. I would say that, "Maybe I'm just getting old," but when I actually look at the huma…

I agree but they're Groups, Messenger and Marketplace offerings are best in the industry. It's what myself and most of my friends use it for now.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#283

Post by bdcravens »

wirthjason wrote: post #16

Since there is bound to be a lot of Facebook bashing I’ll point out that they occasionally do some good. In the case of software they can be good stewards of FOSS. I listened to this CoRecursive episode about the history of Zstandard compression algorithm and how FB allowed the author, Yann Collet, to fully open source it while other companies wanted to keep it proprietary. https://corecursive.com/data-compression-ya…

Enron was very charitable.

https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/enron-s-philanthropy...

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#284

Post by jonathankoren »

optymizer wrote: post #275
jonathankoren wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything run and controlled by exactly one major company. Not so much open source, as faux-pen source.

What are you talking about? You can fork the code and go nuts. There's an open source license attached to the code. It's the definition of free and open source code. Jesus we're getting into demented territory here.

There’s a big difference between theory and practice though. If there’s not actually a community of developers, then the project dies.

We’ve all seen fauxpen source projects close up shop immediately after their corporate developer deems them useless. Or better yet, actively reject all external contributions.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#285

Post by nuclearnice1 »

fnimick wrote: post #209
nuclearnice1 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably too simplistic. Innovation serves some and “disrupts” others. Uber might be a handy ride for you. A NYC cabbie who is in debt for his medallion might see it the opposite.

And by the law, Uber should be illegal. That they broke the law and got popular enough to apply political pressure does not mean that they were not technically illegal the entire time. There's no contradiction here. If certain applications are illegal, you don't get to decide that regulation is inconvenient to your "innovation" and deal with the consequences later. Or rather, that is exactly what you do to make $mega…

I think your point about law breaking is good. Facebook, Uber, AirBnB. Too much law breaking in the name of innovation.

I intended to make a narrower more trivial observation that innovation produces winners and losers. Innovation is just competition.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#286

Post by mftrhu »

reaperducer wrote: post #251
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a plausible argument. But shouldn’t we regulate the whole industry then instead of going after a single company? Also there are clearly some benefits from social media so I wouldn’t want to get rid of all of it. For example messaging doesn’t seem so bad in terms of harm vs value. Or things like Facebook Groups that are more like discussion forums (even HN itself falls under this!)

But shouldn’t we regulate the whole industry then instead of going after a single company? You go after one company to establish legal precedent. Then you go after the whole industry.

It also helps that the company they started with is the largest in the industry, and that any regulations targeted at them will affect a couple billions people.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#287

Post by mftrhu »

Lord_Baltimore wrote: post #256
p0pcult wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be allowed to opt others in, especially those under the age of legally informed consent, to brainwashing.

Yeah, I don't think you should be able to opt children into atheistic teaching.

You can't opt in to "atheistic teaching", it's simply the result of not opting in to any of the religious options.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#288

Post by kingTug »

JohnFen wrote: post #259
vkou wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it's built on users supplied to advertisers. --- Facebook's utility for me is now near zero, possibly negative. I'm only there because mom is there. Mom's only there because her friends are there. Moving out of that morass - at least, until mom stops using computers is impossible. At least with Amazon, Google, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, etc, I (currently) have meaningful alternatives. Network effects suck.

> I'm only there because mom is there. Why should that keep you there, though? She's your mother. Surely, you can talk with her directly even if she is on Facebook.

Can't speak for OP but I haven't deactivated my FB to keep tabs on my elderly father. It's an enormously toxic force in his life and it gives me some sense of control when I know what's influencing him. Especially in the throes of the pandemic. He would have engaged in a lot more risky behavior had I not been able to steer him away from some of it.

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#289

Post by [deleted] »

Veedrac wrote: post #167

Truly disgusting to allow an under-13 to talk to an unapproved friend. Companies were never meant to have incentives to provide products to such people and not their guardians. There is a reason we make it illegal for that underclass to own or earn capital, and the ability for companies to circumvent this and provide services anyway through indirect revenue is unpalatable. Cutting that off is necessary, as any good-t…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC

#290

Post by xevdev »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #267
curiousllama wrote: post #8

What I'm most interested in is the redacted bits of the Order to Show Cause [1] The scale of the remediation (no new launches) doesn't really match the scale of the accusation in the press release (Messenger kids once had a bug where kids could circumvent parental controls if the parents didn't pay attention). The Order to Show Cause includes a comprehensive, in-depth review of FB's privacy programs - and it's almost…

Likely ads targeting. Twitter had a bug where they would track you around the web even if you opted out... this was obvious for years because you'd immediately start seeing ads for specific drugs if you searched for a medical condition in a separate browser etc. Instead of actually fixing the issues, they removed the ability to opt-out of personalization (lol)

How is this legal? From my (granted, shallow) understanding of GDPR laws, isn’t it required for companies to allow users to opt out of personalization?
Post reply on HN