“The FTC received no notice that Facebook would be publicly invoking our consent decree to justify terminating academic research earlier this week.”
Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive. What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?
I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exact same reason
> Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive. What's the alternative?
Well I've never really been sanctioned by the law for anything significant, but I would imagine that if I was sanctioned by the law for something afterwards I would be mindful of that fact and try to avoid being sanctioned again?
But there's a big difference between me and Facebook and that's that I don't have a callous disregard for the law and well being of society.
In 2020 they had $29B net income on $89B revenue. Their forward pe is 29. While they are definitely priced for continued growth, it is really wrong to say that their finances befit a “100x lower” valuation.
> Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive.
I'm not willing to cut Facebook so much slack here. They very much do not want any independent public oversight of their advertising operations (e.g. they want to release self-congratulatory reports with numbers that lack denominators, and they don't want anyone to be able to call them on the BS). I think any invocation of the consent decree is likely just a smokescreen for what they really want to do.
Society does not owe Facebook anything. Let them operate only via actions that are ethical and privacy-preserving, and if they cannot do so, then let Facebook die, and good riddance.
> I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exact same reason
The people that run Facebook are vain, greedy, and utterly uninterested in the public good, but they are not stupid and are almost certainly aware of the existence of telephones and email. They undoubtedly understood that banning a public interest research group is a fundamentally different activity than banning advertising firms or other commercial actors, and had they been interested in actually following the law here this would have involved communication with FTC about what they should do in this situation. It apparently didn’t.
I’m no expert but I think this actually is what banks do? The regulators can’t give them a definitive answer in advance, but they can hire former regulators and get an idea of what the regulators will find favorable, and make sure that announcements of new initiatives won’t be a complete surprise to the regulators.
But maybe I’m just misinterpreting something half remembered from a Matt Levine column.
Pretty close - surprising a regulator like this and especially making misleading statements about their supervision is exceptionally bad form and suggests Facebook doesn’t have have the right processes in place to implement their consent decree.
To see such a swift and public censure is a very strong warning to pull up their stocks and expect much more scrutiny on this topic.
If someone at a bank had done something to prompt a response like this it would be a career limiting move - I can’t think of a similar case offhand but avoiding this kind of fallout would be very high on any sensible CEO’s todo list.
It is true that especially with new regulation the rules and definitions aren't fully clear but banks need to somehow comply.
In those cases showing the effort that you are engaged in getting there helps, you make an interpretation and go with it, but you might need to change when there is clarity on the proper interpretation, banks are looking at what other banks are doing, external specialists are hired. But it still remains messy.
I think I'm misreading your argument because it seems to me like you're saying: "There are rules and if I don't publicly flaunt those rules like I did in the past, everything is ok?"
Don't you understand that the argument: "You're only guilty if you get caught" doesn't really resonate with most of the public? Whether or not FB talks to the FTC about certain issues has nothing to do with them breaking rules. This is not how the law works.
For example, I could call the police and inform them I was breaking into a house. I would probably get stopped and get arrested. The second time, I think to not inform the police about me breaking into a house. Does not informing the police mean I wouldn't be committing a crime? No, it doesn't.
I'm open to a discussion if you think the rules are too strict.
Facebook LIED saying the consent decree forced them to terminate research accounts.
The FTC would like to be notified when FB is making a statement related to FTC policy so they don't lie. If they hadn't misrepresented the FTC wouldn't have a problem.
Facebook does X, which the Government decides causes Y amount of harm to society. The Government compels Facebook to fund independent research to verify this claim.
Independent research finds that Facebook does cause some amount of harm to society. Government uses that evidence to compel Facebook to act in ways that might reduce that harm.
Facebook agrees and decides to implement controls that might reduce this harm.
Facebook then wonders, “hmm why not just stop paying for this research, it’s actually leading to worse outcomes for us” and decides to shut down that research.
> What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?
Maybe nothing that extreme, but certainly reasonable controls to operate in a way that’s verified by independent research as to not cause harm to society.
No it isn't. People make arbitrary statements like this all the time when talking about big numbers and they often do not make sense. $5B is ~1/6 of their net income and a bit more than 5% of their revenue. That is a large number. It's not a death sentence, but it is a big hit.
Metaphorical pennies. I don't see how a 1 time charge of 1/6 of one year's net income is that big of a charge. Make it a whole year of profit and now you're talking.
Not sure why you’re downvoted. But sadly this is true. Fb knows it is financially better off to pay the fine than change their operations. It just goes to show how capitalistic the US really is and how tolerant this country is towards unprecedented market power. No way it will fly in the EU. And that is why there is no FB in the EU.
Though it does tend to have fewer regulations than the EU, the claim that this settlement has resulted in no operational changes does not appear to be true.
I read the linked PR--I am curious to see if these restrictions really protect consumers. My cynical side imagines these restrictions were written with input from FB and that they will find ways around them. But I'm cautiously hopeful.
There was almost certainly some negotiation- it’s a voluntary agreement. But if they can’t or won’t hold themselves to it the FTC and the courts can and will enforce it and that 5B could easily become far bigger.
I think the most expensive part of this whole thing is probably this:
> Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about user privacy.
Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive. What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?
I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exact same reason