FTC Approves Roughly $5B Facebook Settlement(wsj.com)
wsj.com
FTC Approves Roughly $5B Facebook Settlement
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-approves-roughly-5-billion-facebook-settlement-11562960538?mod=rsswn
116 comments
Still distraught that Equifax, which was so egregious, was not disciplined at this level.
Just so incredibly disturbing. For all of Facebook's fault, it's very easy to opt out of using it. When a service that the government forces you to use loses your data, heads should roll.
You can’t opt out of facebook at all. They have web bugs, they have a 3rd party mobile analytics SDK, they have contact lists from anybody who knows you, they have things you didn’t know you are touching.
>> For all of Facebook's fault, it's very easy to opt out of using it.
Not really. Facebook has shadow profiles of non-users.
Not really. Facebook has shadow profiles of non-users.
Perhaps in the sense that they have a session cookie that tracks impressions of sites which reference them on the web, and that information they have that their users uploaded that happen to also reference you.
But not anything like in the sense of a logged in user and the level of knowledge they have about actual users.
Facebook knows a lot less about non-registered users than Google does, for instance.
And in the sense of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is what this fine is about, my understanding is that non-users were entirely unaffected.
But not anything like in the sense of a logged in user and the level of knowledge they have about actual users.
Facebook knows a lot less about non-registered users than Google does, for instance.
And in the sense of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is what this fine is about, my understanding is that non-users were entirely unaffected.
Why do you think Google knows more than Facebook?
Search queries reveal a lot.
I haven't kept up, but as of 12 years ago they were anonymizing search logs for users that aren't logged in:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/searchengineland.com/google-ano...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/searchengineland.com/google-ano...
Do we consider people making search queries on Google to be non-users?
I think yes if you’re not logged in. But there’s plenty of ways Google is tracking you, and serving ads to you, away from Google.com too.
[deleted]
Which level?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg
There is zero impact to Facebook from this fine. They are celebrating with champagne and looking at new yacht prices in Menlo Park.
Nobody goes to jail, everyone keeps their jobs. They only broke Democracy, it seems like that would be the one crime you wouldn't just get off scot free for. The FTC is complicit, we don't seem to have a functional regulatory system in this country any more.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg
There is zero impact to Facebook from this fine. They are celebrating with champagne and looking at new yacht prices in Menlo Park.
Nobody goes to jail, everyone keeps their jobs. They only broke Democracy, it seems like that would be the one crime you wouldn't just get off scot free for. The FTC is complicit, we don't seem to have a functional regulatory system in this country any more.
Facebook got a lot more news coverage over a longer period of time
Has anyone done an estimate to how much it would cost to roll out an actual ID system instead of continuing to use SSNs? Perhaps this unrelated $5BN can be used towards it. /s
It's not a matter of money cost. Americans are (in some ways rationally, in most irrationally) terrified of a national ID.
Who's ginning up that terror? Where there's an irrational fear, there's usually a vested interest involved.
Comparing US society to the USSR. The US wanted to not ever become a "papers please" society, and tried to make it impossible to become one.
Some of this changed after 9/11, but the underlying mentality is still somewhat there.
Some of this changed after 9/11, but the underlying mentality is still somewhat there.
Unfortunately I don't see something like that ever passing America. Nobody supports a national ID.
I support a national ID... But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose? It still gets asked for very broadly (not just for credit-related things... let alone for social security related things) and people very easily give them up.
One might also ask the same question when IDs for different purposes are used -- why not a fuss over driver's licenses and passports, which are context-dependent IDs?
We can always call it something else. "National signature card". The ideal implementation would be something like Estonia's ID card.
One might also ask the same question when IDs for different purposes are used -- why not a fuss over driver's licenses and passports, which are context-dependent IDs?
We can always call it something else. "National signature card". The ideal implementation would be something like Estonia's ID card.
There has in fact been fuss over driver's licences, specifically as a requirement for voting.
Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, but there are some real barriers for some people for getting state issued ID. It's has a monetary cost, it expires, it now requires a birth certificate. If you're poor, older, or happened to have your birth hospital's or county office's records destroyed by a fire (not uncommon at all), you may not be able to get a valid, state-issued ID.
For instance, my mother was born to Irish parents with US citizenship through naturalization (granted under a law according citizenship to people who fought for the allies in WWII). When she moved to a new state and needed to renew her driver's license, it took months to get someone to accept her documents and explanation even though she had been a US citizen all her life (but born outside the country).
Whatever national ID system would be implemented, it would have to be bulletproof. Otherwise it could incidentally disenfranchise people.
Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution, but there are some real barriers for some people for getting state issued ID. It's has a monetary cost, it expires, it now requires a birth certificate. If you're poor, older, or happened to have your birth hospital's or county office's records destroyed by a fire (not uncommon at all), you may not be able to get a valid, state-issued ID.
For instance, my mother was born to Irish parents with US citizenship through naturalization (granted under a law according citizenship to people who fought for the allies in WWII). When she moved to a new state and needed to renew her driver's license, it took months to get someone to accept her documents and explanation even though she had been a US citizen all her life (but born outside the country).
Whatever national ID system would be implemented, it would have to be bulletproof. Otherwise it could incidentally disenfranchise people.
> Voting is a guaranteed right of the US constitution,
There are some guarantees yes. But it's not universal.
For example, voting eligibility is frequently denied on the basis of age and criminal history.
There are some guarantees yes. But it's not universal.
For example, voting eligibility is frequently denied on the basis of age and criminal history.
You're right - I misspoke. Voting eligibility is a subject with a complex history. There are many guarantees laid out in several amendments and acts. I simply meant to point out that something as conceptually simple as "just a national ID system" could have far-reaching effects such as disenfranchisement.
> But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose?
There have actually been requirements enacted prohibiting SSNs from being used for anything other than social security, but they haven't been enforced, and that's the problem with SSNs.
The answer isn't to have a national ID, it's to get rid of SSNs, or at least restrict them to social security.
You shouldn't need a SSN to open a bank account. The bank should issue you a bank ID (i.e. a debit/credit card) which allows you to get/spend the money you've deposited. You have a credit card number, you have a bank routing number, what do you need a SSN for? Only surveillance, nothing else.
If you stop using SSNs for anything other than social security, you can't have Equifax. Databases tracking everything about everybody are not required to exist, do not benefit people, and national ID numbers only exist to enable them.
There have actually been requirements enacted prohibiting SSNs from being used for anything other than social security, but they haven't been enforced, and that's the problem with SSNs.
The answer isn't to have a national ID, it's to get rid of SSNs, or at least restrict them to social security.
You shouldn't need a SSN to open a bank account. The bank should issue you a bank ID (i.e. a debit/credit card) which allows you to get/spend the money you've deposited. You have a credit card number, you have a bank routing number, what do you need a SSN for? Only surveillance, nothing else.
If you stop using SSNs for anything other than social security, you can't have Equifax. Databases tracking everything about everybody are not required to exist, do not benefit people, and national ID numbers only exist to enable them.
What do you need an SSN for? Taxes. (There was a time when bank accounts actually paid enough interest to matter on your taxes...)
That should only be required for an interest-bearing account and only if the interest exceeds the reporting threshold. It should at least be possible to have an account without providing the SSN.
They could still withhold the interest until you provide the SSN in the uncommon case that both of those are satisfied, but that should be very uncommon indeed because if you have enough money to reach the reporting threshold, you would make more investing it in even low risk securities, so only foolish or extremely conservative people should ever have done that.
(And if we want to go into a different policy discussion, you wouldn't need SSNs at all if we would switch to VAT+UBI, because then there is no income tax, the UBI handles making it progressive, and the VAT is handled by the selling business, so there is no need to track anyone's personal dealings whatsoever.)
They could still withhold the interest until you provide the SSN in the uncommon case that both of those are satisfied, but that should be very uncommon indeed because if you have enough money to reach the reporting threshold, you would make more investing it in even low risk securities, so only foolish or extremely conservative people should ever have done that.
(And if we want to go into a different policy discussion, you wouldn't need SSNs at all if we would switch to VAT+UBI, because then there is no income tax, the UBI handles making it progressive, and the VAT is handled by the selling business, so there is no need to track anyone's personal dealings whatsoever.)
> and only if the interest exceeds the reporting threshold.
That would lead to the bank needing to get your SSN on an existing account when you made a deposit. That seems... messy.
That would lead to the bank needing to get your SSN on an existing account when you made a deposit. That seems... messy.
Why would they need it for you to make a deposit? They're just making sure you pay your taxes, which as long as the money is still in the account, would be there and remain available for that purpose until you fill out the form. They wouldn't even need to restrict withdrawals provided there was still enough in the account to cover the taxes.
Wow, you're sure free with new procedures to impose on the banks...
The drug war in the 1980s and the focus on money laundering also motivated this - the seeds of the 'know your customer requirements were planted here.
The problem isn't the name. America has an absolutely huge number of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who honestly believe that a national ID card is the Mark of the Beast that's talked about in Revelation 13:16-17. Even mentioning it as a politician will cause large sections of the country to start referring to you as the Anti-Christ (it's not even political: it happened with Bill Clinton and it happened with Bush just the same).
The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't. And even the people who don't directly believe it, many of them are influenced by the people who do. "I don't actually believe Politician X is the actual Anti-Christ, but Preacher Y does make a good point about their tax policy..."
Anything new that could be called a "national ID" is going to be met with a lot of money saying it's the Mark of the Beast.
The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't. And even the people who don't directly believe it, many of them are influenced by the people who do. "I don't actually believe Politician X is the actual Anti-Christ, but Preacher Y does make a good point about their tax policy..."
Anything new that could be called a "national ID" is going to be met with a lot of money saying it's the Mark of the Beast.
Did they completely zone out when all this "Real ID" nonsense was rolled out? It's a defacto national ID that's going to be required for travel in the country (flying) but manages to skip out on providing any of the actual benefits a unified national Id would provide.
They absolutely did not.
Is REAL ID the beginning of the Mark of the Beast? https://www.endtime.com/podcast/real-id-update/
Students of Bible prophecy recognize this as a possible fulfillment of the prophecy found in the book of Revelation - https://www.jeremiahproject.com/new-world-order/u-s-roll-nat...
The Real ID – A National ID or Mark of the Beast? https://escapeallthesethings.com/real-id-act/
Is coming national ID 'mark of the beast'? https://www.wnd.com/2006/05/36029/
National ID Cards and the Mark Of the Beast https://countdown.org/en/entries/features/national-id-cards-...
Is REAL ID the beginning of the Mark of the Beast? https://www.endtime.com/podcast/real-id-update/
Students of Bible prophecy recognize this as a possible fulfillment of the prophecy found in the book of Revelation - https://www.jeremiahproject.com/new-world-order/u-s-roll-nat...
The Real ID – A National ID or Mark of the Beast? https://escapeallthesethings.com/real-id-act/
Is coming national ID 'mark of the beast'? https://www.wnd.com/2006/05/36029/
National ID Cards and the Mark Of the Beast https://countdown.org/en/entries/features/national-id-cards-...
> The people who believe this vote at a much higher rate than the people who don't
I noticed as I read that statement my first instinct was to blindly agree with you, because it feels like it might be true (from inside my bubble). But on second thought, do we actually have voting stats to back up this idea, or is it more of the phenomenon that the minority opinions making the most noise seem to be more numerous than the population who generally keep to themselves?
I noticed as I read that statement my first instinct was to blindly agree with you, because it feels like it might be true (from inside my bubble). But on second thought, do we actually have voting stats to back up this idea, or is it more of the phenomenon that the minority opinions making the most noise seem to be more numerous than the population who generally keep to themselves?
"white Evangelicals were an identical 26 percent of the electorate in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018" [1] even though they're only 15% of the population [2]. That number is dropping sharply as younger generations are less likely to be part of an Evangelical church.
Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3].
[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu...
[3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3].
[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu...
[3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
Is the lot of money going to exceed $5B? And of course such a system could be implemented outside of a representative system influenced by voters, as many other national policies have been.
The mark of the beast is pretty specific in that it requires the right hand or forehead. I once thought maybe we'd see something with embedded RFID in that space get the fundies riled up, but machine learning of faces and gestures and gait and so forth are quite sufficient. The future for us meatbags will look more like an Amazon Go store experience, you carry the mark already as original sin just because of your slight differences from everyone else that machines can pick up on!
The mark of the beast is pretty specific in that it requires the right hand or forehead. I once thought maybe we'd see something with embedded RFID in that space get the fundies riled up, but machine learning of faces and gestures and gait and so forth are quite sufficient. The future for us meatbags will look more like an Amazon Go store experience, you carry the mark already as original sin just because of your slight differences from everyone else that machines can pick up on!
Make fun of the fundies if you must, but don't ignore that longstanding books are written in response to longstanding problems.
Early Christians had a lot of experience with oppressive bureaucracies -- The Holy Roman Empire, among others -- and willfully subjecting yourself to a system for faraway emperors to scrutinize and inject themselves into your personal dealings is generally not a precursor to good times and personal prosperity.
Early Christians had a lot of experience with oppressive bureaucracies -- The Holy Roman Empire, among others -- and willfully subjecting yourself to a system for faraway emperors to scrutinize and inject themselves into your personal dealings is generally not a precursor to good times and personal prosperity.
Do you mean the Roman Empire, rather than the HRE?
All of it, really. Caesar through Napoleon and plenty before, after and in between. They each did their share of taxing and warring and conquering, generally not much to the advantage of those on the outskirts of their empires.
I’ve seen many news articles against National IDs allude to that Bible verse in an obviously allegorical form, but even as someone who originally grew up in a predominantly Christian town in the American Midwest, I have never come across anyone who genuinely believed that nationals ID cards actually ARE the “Mark of the Beast” as you stated. Do you have any sources?
I added some sources in another comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20428361
Note that there is a big difference between "Christians" and "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Evangelicals". Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are politically conservative groups, Fundamentalists even more so.
Note that there is a big difference between "Christians" and "Christian Fundamentalists" or "Evangelicals". Fundamentalists and Evangelicals are politically conservative groups, Fundamentalists even more so.
I do wonder how much political influence fringe religious groups really have.
"White Evangelicals were an identical 26 percent of the electorate in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018" [1] even though they're only 15% of the population [2]. That number is dropping sharply as younger generations are less likely to be part of an Evangelical church.
Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3].
[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu...
[3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting bloc at 27% of the population, but only represent 20% of the votes cast [3].
[1] http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/in-midterms-white-eva...
[2] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18070630/white-evangelicals-tu...
[3] https://medium.com/s/youthnow/ruined-entire-generation-of-yo...
Drivers licenses are already contentious in some respects, and a National ID is likely to be contentious in those same respects. Namely, if you create one, is it then acceptable to require voters to present it before allowing them to vote? Partisan disagreement over this issue is likely to stall progress.
I'm not sure it would remain a partisan issue if a national ID were used, assuming that there were also good mechanisms in place to make sure everyone can easily get their ID card for free.
The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include:
1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls).
2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters.
3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them.
In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws.
If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include:
1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls).
2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters.
3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them.
In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws.
If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
Maybe it hypothetically could happen, but I don't think it's likely to. I don't think either side of the aisle has any real interest in discussing the matter.
As do I. It’s crazy to me that we don’t have them.
I already have a national ID, it's called my social security card. I need it to open a bank account or get a job or get a realID so I can fly.
I'd much rather have something more secure than a literal piece of card printed decades ago.
I'd much rather have something more secure than a literal piece of card printed decades ago.
I'd much rather have something more secure than a literal piece of card printed decades ago.
Considering how there seems to be a major data breach every week, I don't think we've come up with a "secure" alternative to that little piece of card yet.
Considering how there seems to be a major data breach every week, I don't think we've come up with a "secure" alternative to that little piece of card yet.
There is also the fact that the social security card is a flimsy piece of paper, not plastic or other more durable material. Even just getting social security cards on plastic would be an improvement for something you are expected to keep and present for your entire life.
Passport? State ID?
What does "actual ID system" mean?
SSN is literally a national ID system. Assigned at birth/immigration/residency. Used by national government to pay benefits, track Medicare membership, receive taxes, etc.
If you're talking about adding photos and fingerprints and stuff to SSN or equivalent...that's not a cost thing. That's 100% a privacy thing.
SSN is literally a national ID system. Assigned at birth/immigration/residency. Used by national government to pay benefits, track Medicare membership, receive taxes, etc.
If you're talking about adding photos and fingerprints and stuff to SSN or equivalent...that's not a cost thing. That's 100% a privacy thing.
Actually, the SSN is an account number, solely intended for tracking money paid into and paid out of an account. It isn't meant for identification, and the method it's used for identification is terrible. (Largely: If you know the number, you are identified.)
It's treated like a secret, but as a 9-digit number you give to dozens of organizations in your life which follows a predictable and partially guessable pattern, it is an absolutely terrible secret.
Absolutely good explainer video about how this travesty took place historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
It's treated like a secret, but as a 9-digit number you give to dozens of organizations in your life which follows a predictable and partially guessable pattern, it is an absolutely terrible secret.
Absolutely good explainer video about how this travesty took place historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
SSN is absolutely an identifier.
It's like given name & surname (also identifiers), but actually unique.
The problem is that SSN is not only an identifier, it's also the means of authentication, which is "the process or action of verifying an identity."
---
To draw an analogy, username is an identifier. Password, SSH key exchange, etc. are mean of authentication, i.e. the process of verifying a username identifies the user.
SSN is both a username and a password; it needs to be one or the other.
It's like given name & surname (also identifiers), but actually unique.
The problem is that SSN is not only an identifier, it's also the means of authentication, which is "the process or action of verifying an identity."
---
To draw an analogy, username is an identifier. Password, SSH key exchange, etc. are mean of authentication, i.e. the process of verifying a username identifies the user.
SSN is both a username and a password; it needs to be one or the other.
> SSN is literally a national ID system.
That'd be weird, considering for decades the cards specifically said otherwise.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
> Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972.
That'd be weird, considering for decades the cards specifically said otherwise.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
> Beginning with the sixth design version of the card, issued starting in 1946, SSA added a legend to the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." This legend was removed as part of the design changes for the 18th version of the card, issued beginning in 1972.
If I understand you correctly, it used to not be an identifier, but 40+ years ago that changed?
I suppose the word "system" is doing the bulk of the work here. An ID as a platonic thing is just something that uniquely identifies me, and we have an infinity of integers that would work just fine for that, SSNs being a subset of the integers too. As part of a system, though, this ID should not just only identify me and only me, but no one should be able to identify themselves with any other ID. You can probably classify this into a complete system as a form of authorization to identify, or a process of authentication to be done on ID usage, or a process of verifying an ID or ID derivative (like a signature) which may or may not require authentication.
There are many ways of implementing this from photos to fingerprints to passwords to (my preference) smartcards that never expose the real ID and rely on asymmetrical encryption.
There are many ways of implementing this from photos to fingerprints to passwords to (my preference) smartcards that never expose the real ID and rely on asymmetrical encryption.
Assigned at birth/immigration/residency
A common misperception. A SSN is not assigned at birth. A child doesn't have to have a SSN unless the parents want to use him as a tax deduction.
I didn't get mine until I was 17 and needed one to get a driver's license and passport.
A common misperception. A SSN is not assigned at birth. A child doesn't have to have a SSN unless the parents want to use him as a tax deduction.
I didn't get mine until I was 17 and needed one to get a driver's license and passport.
Yes, you are correct. A person is eligible for a SSN upon birth/immigration/residency.
The federal government requires it for Social Security benefits, and states may require it for driver's licenses, birth certificates, etc.
Practically speaking, between state laws and banking requirements, virtually every U.S. citizen has one.
The federal government requires it for Social Security benefits, and states may require it for driver's licenses, birth certificates, etc.
Practically speaking, between state laws and banking requirements, virtually every U.S. citizen has one.
Facebook doesn't have a consumer facing product that people pay for
Equifax did and offered it for free (credit monitoring/freezing upsell), even though it didn't fix the problem its monetary value masked the settlement.
Equifax did and offered it for free (credit monitoring/freezing upsell), even though it didn't fix the problem its monetary value masked the settlement.
Q12019 revenue was ~$15B [0]. So, about a month's worth of revenue. Honestly, 1/12th of a year's revenue is a fair bit of pain. It's not exactly a slap on the wrist.
My econ-mojo may be really off, but revenue is more akin to the gross profit, not the net profit, correct?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/facebook-earnings-q1-2019.ht...
My econ-mojo may be really off, but revenue is more akin to the gross profit, not the net profit, correct?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/facebook-earnings-q1-2019.ht...
1/12th of a year's revenue is a bit of pain, but it won't cause any fundamental changes at Facebook I think. This just sends the message that you don't have to care about things like ethics or user data being private as long as you have a big enough war chest to pay off the government. Either the fine should've been bigger, or coupled with new regulation.
Nothing can change Facebook that Zuckerberg doesn’t want to change. He has a controlling interest.
Tell that to the talent that no longer wants to work for Facebook and the executives fleeing the company.
It's an extremely fast way to change a company, no matter how much voting power Zuckerberg has. It'll kick Facebook into old age stagnation and rot mode faster than just about anything else. To say nothing of what happens when an organization no longer trusts and believes in its CEO.
Which is to say, Zuckerberg's voting power doesn't make him or Facebook immune to suffering numerous consequences of poor leadership. That can rather dramatically change Facebook. Depending on the extent and duration of that poor decision making obviously.
It's an extremely fast way to change a company, no matter how much voting power Zuckerberg has. It'll kick Facebook into old age stagnation and rot mode faster than just about anything else. To say nothing of what happens when an organization no longer trusts and believes in its CEO.
Which is to say, Zuckerberg's voting power doesn't make him or Facebook immune to suffering numerous consequences of poor leadership. That can rather dramatically change Facebook. Depending on the extent and duration of that poor decision making obviously.
Tell that to the talent that no longer wants to work for Facebook and the executives fleeing the company.
And there are thousands of college graduates who will spend months learning LeetCode and be glad to take their places and get a total comp of $250K+ a year. You severely overestimate how few people care more about the “greater good” than collecting a nice check.
And there are thousands of college graduates who will spend months learning LeetCode and be glad to take their places and get a total comp of $250K+ a year. You severely overestimate how few people care more about the “greater good” than collecting a nice check.
Maaaaybe. I'd like to think that there is an evaporative effect occuring there.
Assuming that more ethical people are better to work with and vice versa, then as more ethical people leave, the work enviroment gets worse and worse.
Like, payroll issues take longer to deal with, your co-workers aren't as up for beers on Fridays, your boss isn't as on your side as you'd like. So, the elves leave middle earth.
Eventually, the company can end up in a situation where payroll issues are impossible to deal with, where your co-workers are far too free to hit up a bar on a Tuesday night, where your boss could care less about you. So then even some of the skuzz-bucket people say they have had enough.
So, yeah, FB is good right now and can use their funds to pay people to deal with those issues. But fines like the one they got today are going to hamper that process.
As has been said for decades: Culture is everything.
Assuming that more ethical people are better to work with and vice versa, then as more ethical people leave, the work enviroment gets worse and worse.
Like, payroll issues take longer to deal with, your co-workers aren't as up for beers on Fridays, your boss isn't as on your side as you'd like. So, the elves leave middle earth.
Eventually, the company can end up in a situation where payroll issues are impossible to deal with, where your co-workers are far too free to hit up a bar on a Tuesday night, where your boss could care less about you. So then even some of the skuzz-bucket people say they have had enough.
So, yeah, FB is good right now and can use their funds to pay people to deal with those issues. But fines like the one they got today are going to hamper that process.
As has been said for decades: Culture is everything.
I’ve worked for 20+ years and I’ve learned that the boss “never cares about me”. Anyone who thinks that your company “cares about you” is in for a rude awaking.
I mean, there is a lot of space between the type of boss that could care less and the type of boss that actively tries to harm.
Also, it really does depend on the firm. I've worked a lot of jobs that couldn't be arsed to know my name. I've worked a lot fewer jobs that really did care about me, but I have been there and seen them.
Also, it really does depend on the firm. I've worked a lot of jobs that couldn't be arsed to know my name. I've worked a lot fewer jobs that really did care about me, but I have been there and seen them.
I've worked a lot fewer jobs that really did care about me, but I have been there and seen them.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say over lunch that you told your boss at one of those companies “that really did care” about you that you just bought a house and that you and your spouse are expecting a child. Then the next week that because of a strategic shift/missed earnings/acquisition where the acquirer wanted to find “synergies” they decided they were going to let you go. What do you think is going to happen?
Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say over lunch that you told your boss at one of those companies “that really did care” about you that you just bought a house and that you and your spouse are expecting a child. Then the next week that because of a strategic shift/missed earnings/acquisition where the acquirer wanted to find “synergies” they decided they were going to let you go. What do you think is going to happen?
Generally the firms that care are under 10 people in size.
As such, it depends. And yes, I've seen those exact conversations play out in the favor of the employee before, about a dozen times, even in the larger firms. I've also seen it play out badly too.
As such, it depends. And yes, I've seen those exact conversations play out in the favor of the employee before, about a dozen times, even in the larger firms. I've also seen it play out badly too.
How many firms that are under 10 people in size do you know of that are not VC backed and therefore beholden to their investors who definitely don’t care about the employees?
Not sure I understand the question, but I've never worked for a VC backed start-up. I'm in medtech, not CS.
EDIT: Also, 90% of all companies in the US are under 20 people: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-employment-by-firm-size-h...
EDIT: Also, 90% of all companies in the US are under 20 people: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-employment-by-firm-size-h...
That's not true. Regulation can change it.
Government regulation of tech written by people who don’t know anything about it. What could possibly go wrong?
I'm not commenting on the merit of government regulation of tech companies. I'm simply pointing out that even Mark Zuckerberg does not have absolute power.
Yup, FB is Zuck essentially. He owns ~53% of the voting stock shares.
Regulation like this works when there are increasing consequences.
This fine is $5B, if they keep doing the same sort of thing, what is the next fine going to be?
This fine is $5B, if they keep doing the same sort of thing, what is the next fine going to be?
Even if they don't increase the fines, $5 billion fines on a routine basis start to severely piss off shareholders. No shareholder likes to watch a quarter of a company's profit regularly getting vaporized. That is especially true when your sales and earnings growth rates have plunged as in the case of Facebook (increasingly a mature business).
Now why does any of that matter when Zuckerberg is nearly impossible to remove? Because it risks suppressing the share value, which will (further) harm Facebook's ability to attract the best talent. SV companies like Facebook universally believe they sink or swim by the talent they retain and can recruit.
If Facebook becomes enough of a mess, everyone turns on Zuckerberg, and he's done. The trust entirely goes, the belief in his leadership goes, the board relationships sour, talent doesn't want to work for him, executives don't want to work for him. It means in real terms he can no longer actually lead the company (morally, functionally), regardless of his voting position.
Now why does any of that matter when Zuckerberg is nearly impossible to remove? Because it risks suppressing the share value, which will (further) harm Facebook's ability to attract the best talent. SV companies like Facebook universally believe they sink or swim by the talent they retain and can recruit.
If Facebook becomes enough of a mess, everyone turns on Zuckerberg, and he's done. The trust entirely goes, the belief in his leadership goes, the board relationships sour, talent doesn't want to work for him, executives don't want to work for him. It means in real terms he can no longer actually lead the company (morally, functionally), regardless of his voting position.
$5B is already the increased consequence, they've been violating a consent decree for 8 years. Presumably in another 8 years the FTC will fine them $10B ... I'm sure that'll fix it right up.
It's not really the size of the fine compared to total annual revenue or size of the war chest that matters. The correct comparison is to the boost in revenue over multiple years: Did the shady privacy practices increase Facebook's revenue by at least $5 billion over the past several years? If yes, the fine should have been bigger.
I'm somewhat amazed how many people on here seem to be happy that large tech companies are forced to pay giant fines to the government when their salaries are paid or propped up by the market created by these same companies.
I'm not saying FB has done no wrong, but is it really 100 times worse than Equifax, Wall Street banks and a host of other more malicious corporate offenders that got a slap on the wrist and a small 1-2 digit fine?
I'm not saying FB has done no wrong, but is it really 100 times worse than Equifax, Wall Street banks and a host of other more malicious corporate offenders that got a slap on the wrist and a small 1-2 digit fine?
2 wrong does not make one right.
All these companies should be paying giant fines. FB's fine is not giant relative to their yearly revenue.
All these companies should be paying giant fines. FB's fine is not giant relative to their yearly revenue.
However, you don't see banksters on bankernews complaining how small their fine is.
They realize that'd be biting the hand that feeds them. From all the big industries, only tech seems to have an active desire to watch itself burn.
If it is not yet obvious, taking large amounts of money from tech companies will impact everyone, including tech employees by forcing job cuts and lowering salaries. Doesn't matter if you work at Facebook.
They realize that'd be biting the hand that feeds them. From all the big industries, only tech seems to have an active desire to watch itself burn.
If it is not yet obvious, taking large amounts of money from tech companies will impact everyone, including tech employees by forcing job cuts and lowering salaries. Doesn't matter if you work at Facebook.
Even though that's a lot of money... I can't help thinking it's not nearly enough.
$5b is a record fine for this... I’m sure they agonised and struggled to get it this high. It’s not even been ratified yet.
Can you really see a headline of a $10/20/50b fine for Facebook?
Can you really see a headline of a $10/20/50b fine for Facebook?
What amount would you say is enough?
50 billion is the right order of magnitude.
I think you might be conflating your overarching desire for the dismantling of Facebook with the actual case at hand, which is for specific actions taken by Facebook which violated certain aspects of their users’ privacy based on a practice (API supported friend scraping) which is no longer allowed.
Enough to put shareholder equity at risk, or in other words, a fine on the scale of bankruptcy risk.
FB is flat over the last year, I would like to see a fine that results in a significant loss of market cap, preferably something which would require selling off business units to stay solvent.
FB is flat over the last year, I would like to see a fine that results in a significant loss of market cap, preferably something which would require selling off business units to stay solvent.
This was already priced into the stock value which is why it hasn't had an effect
I'm not talking about what happened today, but the long term effect.
Yes it was priced into the stock and that price is about equal to the price of FB a year ago.
I want that price, the long term price not the intraday reaction, I want the long term price to be down more than 10%.
Yes it was priced into the stock and that price is about equal to the price of FB a year ago.
I want that price, the long term price not the intraday reaction, I want the long term price to be down more than 10%.
Q4’18 profit was $6.9B, so $5B is nearly 1/4 of a year’s profit.
That will be noticed.
That will be noticed.
They had already budgeted for it earlier this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/technology/facebook-ftc-f...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/technology/facebook-ftc-f...
> disclosed in April 2019 that it was nearing the end of negotiations with the FTC and expected a fine of between $3bn and $5bn.
That's a quote from the article in The Guardian [0].
Negotiations? They were negotiating their own fine? That sounds so absurd. Surely someone can reply telling me it's normal, but can anyone make an argument for why it makes sense?
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/12/facebook-...
That's a quote from the article in The Guardian [0].
Negotiations? They were negotiating their own fine? That sounds so absurd. Surely someone can reply telling me it's normal, but can anyone make an argument for why it makes sense?
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/12/facebook-...
Stock market seems to think it was a good deal for FB; share price jumped ~1.3% on the news.
Facebook previously stated that they were expecting a fine of ~$5B. The fine + uncertainty was already priced into the stock.
The market is reacting to the removal of that uncertainty, which is the same as a reduction in risk holding the stock.
The market is reacting to the removal of that uncertainty, which is the same as a reduction in risk holding the stock.
And when FB previously announced they expected a $5B fine, their stock was up 10% on that day.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742270
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742270
$5B is peanuts for FB, just Mark personal wealth is ~$74B, he could pay the fine himself.
The should have fined FB on some % of their total revenue, like GRDP. I'd say 15/20% at least.
The should have fined FB on some % of their total revenue, like GRDP. I'd say 15/20% at least.
5 billion is a truck load of cash and any company with the least competitive capacity will be willing to spend up to 4.999.999.999 to avoid paying it.
> is a truck load of cash
it is relative, for normal people it is indeed a ton of cash, but you have to compare that to the size of FB. In that respect, $5B is not that much.
it is relative, for normal people it is indeed a ton of cash, but you have to compare that to the size of FB. In that respect, $5B is not that much.
Thats the wrong mental model. Most operations facebook does is in the few cents to a few dollars: that is insignificant to the total revenue, so they would forgo every single thing relative to the general income, and you can guess what happens afterwards.
The problem is 15/20% gets into scary headlines that nobody wants to be behind
Their revenue for 2018 was $56B, so while not 15/20%, it's higher than the maximum fine of the GDPR (4%) would be.
Though the GDPR is per violation, so technically one can be fined for more than that.
Though the GDPR is per violation, so technically one can be fined for more than that.
Facebook's current market cap is $585B, so this is less than 1% of their market cap
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
About as painful as a bad PR week. And easy to attribute to the "cost of doing business"
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
About as painful as a bad PR week. And easy to attribute to the "cost of doing business"
Where does this money go, out of curiosity? Does it go into the FTC's budget? Govt general fund?
[deleted]
FB stock up ~2% today.
Because FB accurately predicted the fine amount and doesn’t have to use any more money. The market are already adjusted to the FTC fine risk. The only risk measure by this point was if it would be higher than $5b.
But that’s not the case. When FB announces 3 months ago they were holding back $5B for an estimated fine, their stock was up 10% that day.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742270
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19742270
That is the case. A $5B estimated fine puts a rough ballpark on the potential fine. I.e. it's likely not going to be over $10bn. That could easily bump the stock up, with extra potential upside due to the uncertainty of what the actual figure will be. That is, could it be $8B? There is extra uncertainty priced in which has now been fully lifted.