3 ms·

The debate has lost sight of even 'how can we punish Facebook for CA' and moved into 'how can we punish Facebook simply for being Facebook'. At that point, the

The debate has lost sight of even 'how can we punish Facebook for CA' and moved into 'how can we punish Facebook simply for being Facebook'. At that point, there's no need to tie the figure to anything - someone could (and probably will) come along and say 'make the fine 500bn instead' and it will have just as much basis in reality. Which is fine - many do think that the world without Facebook in it would be a better place. But this is certainly not about ‘how can we coerce Facebook into being a more responsible actor’.

tptacek 8y ago
And: I pretty much loathe Facebook, but that doesn't mean I like being pandered to by Kara Swisher.
Consultant32452 8y ago
It is really interesting. I don't have strong opinions about FB privacy and fines. To the extent I think they're a problem, I also think they're on their way out. I do believe that the public focus (as opposed to HN focus) turned to FB because they got a healthy portion of the "blame" for Trump winning in 2016. I find this situation to be hilarious in a cynical way. This marketing company got credit for helping elect someone to the most powerful position on the planet, and somehow that worked out REALLY poorly for the marketer. Who would've thought?
- kristianc 8y ago
  > This marketing company got credit for helping elect someone to the most powerful position on the planet, and somehow that worked out REALLY poorly for the marketer. Who would've thought? Blaming Facebook is a way of the media class and voters obsolving themselves of their part in the original sin of electing Trump. It's a convenient fiction that Facebook swung the election, and it's one that if the Democrats have any aspirations of winning in 2020, they would do well to acknowledge. I'm no fan of Facebook either. But however much Facebook is fined, that sin can't be purged. It's the voters that elected him, and the media that ensured that Trump was the story for much of 2016.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    I'm going to really stretch credulity for a moment for my own amusement. In the wake of losing the 2016 election, it appears the Clinton campaign may have picked some poorly constructed Russian ads as a scapegoat. This rather arbitrary and somewhat random decision by some campaign worker may ultimately topple a multi billion dollar tech giant. And I wonder if the campaign worker who made the original suggestion to blame Russian ads at an otherwise standard/boring messaging meeting connects the two things.
notacoward 8y ago
> how can we punish Facebook simply for being Facebook Exactly. Let's pursue the idea of fines big enough to cripple a company. Why stop at Facebook? Couldn't you apply the same policy arguments to the banks that brought us the housing crisis, to the pharmaceutical companies that brought us the opioid crisis, to oil companies, tobacco companies, and so on? Why didn't the people calling for Facebook's death by fine make the same arguments in these other cases? Because they don't really believe in this as a general policy. It's stupid as a general policy. It puts the government in charge of picking winners and losers, and even as a pretty extreme leftist I don't think that's right. Regulation should be general, not targeted to favor or punish one company, and I think proponents of a "kill the company" fine know that. They just want to kill Facebook, and a fine is just the tool that comes to hand. It's dishonest, and it's bad general policy. People who truly care about privacy would be proposing regulations and fines that can apply to anyone, not just to their self-chosen nemesis.
- Despegar 8y ago
  >Why didn't the people calling for Facebook's death by fine make the same arguments in these other cases? Because they don't really believe in this as a general policy. This is complete nonsense and shows you weren't paying attention or have forgotten what happened after the GFC. The big criticism of the Obama administration to this day from the left is that no bankers were put in jail. The Tea Party movement was a right wing reaction to the bank bailouts. At least the GFC gave us Dodd-Frank. I'm hoping for a GDPR clone to come out of the tech industry's GFC.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    > This is complete nonsense Please read the site guidelines. > This is complete nonsense and shows you weren't paying attention or have forgotten what happened after the GFC. We're not talking about jail, though that's an interesting conversation to have. We're talking about fines big enough to put a company out of business. What banks went out of business because of government action? What pharmaceutical companies? What tobacco companies. I'll bet I was paying much closer attention than you, and I didn't see anywhere this level of "add another zero" hysteria then. Even people who didn't totally agree with "too big to fail" seemed to agree with enough of it to stop short of where they are now regarding Facebook. > I'm hoping for a GDPR clone to come out of the tech industry's GFC So am I. It just has to be general regulation that can be enforced fairly on anyone who transgresses, not a targeted hit against the pundits' favorite target.

tptacek 8y ago

And: I pretty much loathe Facebook, but that doesn't mean I like being pandered to by Kara Swisher.

Consultant32452 8y ago

It is really interesting. I don't have strong opinions about FB privacy and fines. To the extent I think they're a problem, I also think they're on their way out. I do believe that the public focus (as opposed to HN focus) turned to FB because they got a healthy portion of the "blame" for Trump winning in 2016. I find this situation to be hilarious in a cynical way. This marketing company got credit for helping elect someone to the most powerful position on the planet, and somehow that worked out REALLY poorly for the marketer. Who would've thought?

kristianc 8y ago
> This marketing company got credit for helping elect someone to the most powerful position on the planet, and somehow that worked out REALLY poorly for the marketer. Who would've thought? Blaming Facebook is a way of the media class and voters obsolving themselves of their part in the original sin of electing Trump. It's a convenient fiction that Facebook swung the election, and it's one that if the Democrats have any aspirations of winning in 2020, they would do well to acknowledge. I'm no fan of Facebook either. But however much Facebook is fined, that sin can't be purged. It's the voters that elected him, and the media that ensured that Trump was the story for much of 2016.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I'm going to really stretch credulity for a moment for my own amusement. In the wake of losing the 2016 election, it appears the Clinton campaign may have picked some poorly constructed Russian ads as a scapegoat. This rather arbitrary and somewhat random decision by some campaign worker may ultimately topple a multi billion dollar tech giant. And I wonder if the campaign worker who made the original suggestion to blame Russian ads at an otherwise standard/boring messaging meeting connects the two things.

notacoward 8y ago

> how can we punish Facebook simply for being Facebook Exactly. Let's pursue the idea of fines big enough to cripple a company. Why stop at Facebook? Couldn't you apply the same policy arguments to the banks that brought us the housing crisis, to the pharmaceutical companies that brought us the opioid crisis, to oil companies, tobacco companies, and so on? Why didn't the people calling for Facebook's death by fine make the same arguments in these other cases? Because they don't really believe in this as a general policy. It's stupid as a general policy. It puts the government in charge of picking winners and losers, and even as a pretty extreme leftist I don't think that's right. Regulation should be general, not targeted to favor or punish one company, and I think proponents of a "kill the company" fine know that. They just want to kill Facebook, and a fine is just the tool that comes to hand. It's dishonest, and it's bad general policy. People who truly care about privacy would be proposing regulations and fines that can apply to anyone, not just to their self-chosen nemesis.

Despegar 8y ago
>Why didn't the people calling for Facebook's death by fine make the same arguments in these other cases? Because they don't really believe in this as a general policy. This is complete nonsense and shows you weren't paying attention or have forgotten what happened after the GFC. The big criticism of the Obama administration to this day from the left is that no bankers were put in jail. The Tea Party movement was a right wing reaction to the bank bailouts. At least the GFC gave us Dodd-Frank. I'm hoping for a GDPR clone to come out of the tech industry's GFC.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > This is complete nonsense Please read the site guidelines. > This is complete nonsense and shows you weren't paying attention or have forgotten what happened after the GFC. We're not talking about jail, though that's an interesting conversation to have. We're talking about fines big enough to put a company out of business. What banks went out of business because of government action? What pharmaceutical companies? What tobacco companies. I'll bet I was paying much closer attention than you, and I didn't see anywhere this level of "add another zero" hysteria then. Even people who didn't totally agree with "too big to fail" seemed to agree with enough of it to stop short of where they are now regarding Facebook. > I'm hoping for a GDPR clone to come out of the tech industry's GFC So am I. It just has to be general regulation that can be enforced fairly on anyone who transgresses, not a targeted hit against the pundits' favorite target.