4 ms·

I'm sorry, why does there need to be a "negotiation" in the first place? Facebook clearly broke its previous settlement with the FTC, and likely some privacy la

by mtgx 8y ago

I'm sorry, why does there need to be a "negotiation" in the first place? Facebook clearly broke its previous settlement with the FTC, and likely some privacy laws, too, both federal and state-level. Wouldn't accepting any kind of compromise with Facebook mean Facebook won't really learn its lesson, which I assume is the main purpose of this fine? I very much doubt any large corporation feels that it has learned its lesson when it knows it can settle its way out of any violation for a small percentage of the profit it gained from that violation. Just like with bailouts, the incentive is to keep doing the risky/legal grey area stuff, because it will net them the most profit at the end of the day.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm sorry, why does there need to be a "negotiation" in the first place? Because litigation is long, expensive, and uncertain. > Facebook clearly broke its previous settlement with the FTC, and likely some privacy laws, too, both federal and state-level. If that's all really clearly true, that's a lot of leverage in the goverment’s hands, especially if the relevant states join in the negotiation in cooperation with the feds. > Wouldn't accepting any kind of compromise with Facebook mean Facebook won't really learn its lesson A compromise could be “everything we could get in the courts, but without either side bearing the cost of litigation and Facebook gets on to dealing with the fallout today rather than facing uncertainty for years and then dealing with it”, if the government's case is strong enough to make Facebook accept that.
samstave 8y ago
I wonder if, given the fact that insider trading is 'legal' for people in positions like the congress/government - Perhaps they are negotiating on what the fine will be such that certain parties will profit off the outcome of whatever fine is negotiated.

by mtgx 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I'm sorry, why does there need to be a "negotiation" in the first place? Because litigation is long, expensive, and uncertain. > Facebook clearly broke its previous settlement with the FTC, and likely some privacy laws, too, both federal and state-level. If that's all really clearly true, that's a lot of leverage in the goverment’s hands, especially if the relevant states join in the negotiation in cooperation with the feds. > Wouldn't accepting any kind of compromise with Facebook mean Facebook won't really learn its lesson A compromise could be “everything we could get in the courts, but without either side bearing the cost of litigation and Facebook gets on to dealing with the fallout today rather than facing uncertainty for years and then dealing with it”, if the government's case is strong enough to make Facebook accept that.

samstave 8y ago

I wonder if, given the fact that insider trading is 'legal' for people in positions like the congress/government - Perhaps they are negotiating on what the fine will be such that certain parties will profit off the outcome of whatever fine is negotiated.