12 ms·

YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

199 points by arctux 7y ago

um_ya 7y ago
With all the complaints against Youtube, I don't know how they can still be so out of touch with everyone. It's almost as if they're doing it deliberately. They're begging for competition to take over their unprofitable business. Nobody wants to step up.
- pjc50 7y ago
  It's a two sided market; the player with the largest catalog wins. Youtube has also negotiated the copyright minefield extremely well - starting a competitor would have to deal with takedowns.
  - dmix 7y ago
    A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube. A whole lot of major YouTube channels who are constantly attacked by false copyright claims or have to push product placements due to no ads would love to push users to a better platform. So marketing wouldn't be impossible. They could also push privacy and fine tuned data controls which helps with kids. There's enough of a market for two to exist. Maybe with some type of semi decentralized platform approach so individual hosts who deal with copyright poorly can take the hit, making the system more resilient. Chrome style apps and mobile clients could be the interface and the ad/patreon system is controlled by the primary software developer but the rest is an open protocol with a linear license for non commercial stuff (at least non commercial as far as not competing with the monetization platform). The network effects of managing the ad buyers, subscriber accounts with credit cards and one click subs could stave off the competition without fully controlling the full video network and hosts.
    - input_sh 7y ago
      It's a chicken and egg problem: users won't switch platforms until their favorite creators switch over, and the creators won't switch over if nobody's there to watch their videos.
      - dmix 7y ago
        Well in any case it's pretty clear which one needs to come first, convince the creators and they'll push existing users to the new platform. The chicken problem is more about the ad buyers and the users, not creators. The patreon system scales better this way but the ads are what holds most back. I know quite a few YouTube channels who tried pushing one of those awful decentralized versions of YouTube that look like Chinese knockoffs when the either the demonetization and copyright stuff bit them hard and threatened (or simply ruined) years of their hard work, but there was never a proper alternative to offer. I'm sure they'd love a legitimate alternative designed by top tier designers and developers for once. Otherwise the creators will have no financial incentive to route users to another platform. Which is a far higher problem than not having enough other people commenting on the same video as other users.
      - gpm 7y ago
        You don't have to convince creator's to switch, just to use your new platform as well. YouTube doesn't have an exclusive license on the content.
        realusername 7y ago
        That's where the problem is, a lot of popular content creators have contracts with large media groups which specifically prevents them to upload to another platform.
        gpm 7y ago
        Do the media partners in turn have contracts with youtube requiring that they upload to it exclusively? If not, maybe even if so, that might not be such a bad thing. It would mean that if you could negotiate a deal with a single media group to upload to your platform as well you get a lot of content. I don't imagine these businesses are any happier with being hostage by youtube than individual creators.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  Nobody wants to step up So step up. Or are you just too comfortable in your armchair?
  - ericd 7y ago
    Extreme network effects make this an unreasonable thing to ask.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    There have been plenty of attempts, nearly all of them failed (with the rest holding onto niche markets)
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Nobody wants to admit this because everyone here hates ads, but they (ads) are the thing these other YouTube competitors lack and the reason they're not taking off.
14 7y ago
I for one am glad at this though I am sure the fine could have been exponentially larger. The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke. Their are thousands of shows targeted directly at my kids. I can even clearly hear one video my kid likes to watch starts out with saying “look kids” so tell me how that is not directed at kids. I use an adblocker but when I go to my moms she doesn’t have it set up on her iPad. The kids shows are bombarded with ads for adult products like cars or you name it. They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it.
- ty38 7y ago
  > the fine could have been exponentially larger. 200,000,000^2 is 4e16, which is more wealth than exists in the entire world. Which exponent did you mean?
  - cududa 7y ago
    Exponentially larger on a per user basis
- cududa 7y ago
  Why in the hell are you being downvoted for saying YouTube targets children?
  - techntoke 7y ago
    Because children have these things called parents, that are allowing unrestricted access to a platform that they failed to read and follow the terms and conditions of. There is also a YouTube kids app, specifically geared towards helping filter child-appropriate content and advertising policies. I'm personally no fan of YouTube myself, as it constantly recommends channels and videos that I have no interest in and that I often find to be despicable based on my actual interests. I loathe that it does this, but I have the choice of not using it. What would you prefer... Every site you going to require that you sign in and verify your identity before being able to use the service, and sign some type of agreement that you won't let a minor or child access it? Same goes to cigarettes and alcohol by the way.
echelon 7y ago
As I understand it, YouTube remains unprofitable to this date. What game is Google playing at here? Creators are unhappy with the strong arming, users are displeased with the ads and the comments and, well, everything. Parents are unhappy with the creepy videos targeting children. YouTube music is a travesty and is likely to fail like all the other half-baked Google products. YouTube gaming... is dead. Now they're getting fined for something they could have easily avoided. What in the hell is Google doing, and why do they suck at this so bad? I can imagine so many better product experiences. Why can't they get their act together?
- avocado4 7y ago
  > As I understand it, YouTube remains unprofitable to this date. Source?
  - echelon 7y ago
    Nothing recent, but Google does not disclose figures from YouTube. https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f... https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-... (not sure how to un-ampify this)
    - imihai1988 7y ago
      Tangential, you need to click the (i) and then click the actual url ( although they didn't actually mark it as a hyperlink). Amp is getting more and more frustrating w/ each iteration.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Yeah right. The competition is doing so well. Try running a video hosting service within the frameworks of the law. It's still the most popular service by a longshot. Classic HN being delusional again.
  - 7y ago
ct520 7y ago
Love it
ummonk 7y ago
Why did every top level comment here get downvoted? Did this get brigaded by Youtube / Google employees?
- dang 7y ago
  Not as far as I can tell. Many of the comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines and/or are not particularly thoughtful. Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes or making insinuations about brigading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
wongarsu 7y ago
I must say I'm perplexed how every single top level comment is downvoted. This isn't normal.
- dang 7y ago
  The topic turns out to be unusually emotional and many of the comments in the thread are pretty bad.
dang 7y ago
All: this seems to be quite a provocative topic, as with many submissions that involve children and parents. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.
classics2 7y ago
That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.
- warent 7y ago
  I agree. There are many people who I've seen say "this is just a warning to other companies" or "this is just the beginning" but it seems like that's always the case. The fact is, the fine needs to be multiples of quarterly revenue. It needs to be so high not to destroy the company, but enough to make it limp and force it to borrow money to make it through. THEN these will be taken seriously. Until then, these aren't fines. These are price tags for unethical, law-breaking behavior, and these companies are more than happy to pay it.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Force them to borrow money? How big a fine we talking in your authoritarian world? How many people's jobs is it worth losing? No. It does not need to be so damn high. YouTube is aware of the warning, and yes it likely deserves another (order of magnitude larger) fine if they do nothing. But arbitrary fines right out of the gate just hurt everyone.
- Zenst 7y ago
  For a large company, but it does make any new startup/competition go thru a whole extra hoop, which does favour established players.
- judge2020 7y ago
  Unless they've made huge steps in their profit margins, it's still pretty big consisering they weren't profitable in 2015 [0] and likely still not profitable in 2016 [1]. The only argument you could make is the immense value of user data Google gets from YT to show relevant ads outside of the platform. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-google-any-money-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-go... 1: https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...
dgzl 7y ago
To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.
- theobeers 7y ago
  Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- longtom 7y ago
  I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.
    - longtom 7y ago
      But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf
_hardwaregeek 7y ago
This is literally a Silicon Valley plotline. Right down to COPPA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M
asd234h4 7y ago
Hey dang, Quit posting unsubstantiated comments. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.
freediver 7y ago
The fine feels as a millionaire got fined $200 for the same violation.
Zenst 7y ago
Will this create a new virtual 18+ wall before you can view/access content/services. Not that it is illegal by any law to offer such services to those younger, just that the lawyers and the accountants sat down and concluded that the risks can outgrow the rewards. Be interesting how the industry and various platforms navigate this whole area, but I'm mindful that they may well just cut them off period as just less hassle for them.
- Youden 7y ago
  I'm not sure of your age but I grew up with the internet and this "18+ wall" has already existed for a long time. I don't think I know anybody who didn't lie about their birth year on a signup form at some point to get around an age check.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    That's kinda the point, the whole age verification avenue has no credibility and personally I've lied for privacy reasons as why do you need the day and month if the year is 18+. But the area of concern I was raising was such walls being used for no other reason other than risk liability exposure dictated by liability insurance costs. That with age verification systems that are that do credable checks being an area of growth thru demand. Such systems will become easier to implement and the ability to just lie, becomes much more complicated. Hence people being cut off, not thru legal reasons, but for effect - accountants. That's the worry I was raising.
thathndude 7y ago
This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. But on top of that, it’s $200m into the black hole that is our dysfunctional and bloated federal government. How do The Impacted children whose privacy was violated actually benefit. It’s all ridiculous.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  > This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. > Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. No, it isn't. A company's valuation is not money in the bank. The proper comparison is to profit.
  - notyourday 7y ago
    Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.
    - true_religion 7y ago
      It’s okay for a fine to be insignificant. Parking tickets are insignificant fines too, but in aggregate act to control parking behavior. What’s needed is better enforcement, not more stringent fines.
      - notyourday 7y ago
        Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web. Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.
        leetcrew 7y ago
notyourday 7y ago
That number is missing two zeros for it to be anything other than a mosquito bite

199 points by arctux 7y ago

With all the complaints against Youtube, I don't know how they can still be so out of touch with everyone. It's almost as if they're doing it deliberately. They're begging for competition to take over their unprofitable business. Nobody wants to step up.

pjc50 7y ago
It's a two sided market; the player with the largest catalog wins. Youtube has also negotiated the copyright minefield extremely well - starting a competitor would have to deal with takedowns.
- dmix 7y ago
  A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube. A whole lot of major YouTube channels who are constantly attacked by false copyright claims or have to push product placements due to no ads would love to push users to a better platform. So marketing wouldn't be impossible. They could also push privacy and fine tuned data controls which helps with kids. There's enough of a market for two to exist. Maybe with some type of semi decentralized platform approach so individual hosts who deal with copyright poorly can take the hit, making the system more resilient. Chrome style apps and mobile clients could be the interface and the ad/patreon system is controlled by the primary software developer but the rest is an open protocol with a linear license for non commercial stuff (at least non commercial as far as not competing with the monetization platform). The network effects of managing the ad buyers, subscriber accounts with credit cards and one click subs could stave off the competition without fully controlling the full video network and hosts.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    It's a chicken and egg problem: users won't switch platforms until their favorite creators switch over, and the creators won't switch over if nobody's there to watch their videos.
    - dmix 7y ago
      Well in any case it's pretty clear which one needs to come first, convince the creators and they'll push existing users to the new platform. The chicken problem is more about the ad buyers and the users, not creators. The patreon system scales better this way but the ads are what holds most back. I know quite a few YouTube channels who tried pushing one of those awful decentralized versions of YouTube that look like Chinese knockoffs when the either the demonetization and copyright stuff bit them hard and threatened (or simply ruined) years of their hard work, but there was never a proper alternative to offer. I'm sure they'd love a legitimate alternative designed by top tier designers and developers for once. Otherwise the creators will have no financial incentive to route users to another platform. Which is a far higher problem than not having enough other people commenting on the same video as other users.
    - gpm 7y ago
      You don't have to convince creator's to switch, just to use your new platform as well. YouTube doesn't have an exclusive license on the content.
      - realusername 7y ago
        That's where the problem is, a lot of popular content creators have contracts with large media groups which specifically prevents them to upload to another platform.
        gpm 7y ago
        Do the media partners in turn have contracts with youtube requiring that they upload to it exclusively? If not, maybe even if so, that might not be such a bad thing. It would mean that if you could negotiate a deal with a single media group to upload to your platform as well you get a lot of content. I don't imagine these businesses are any happier with being hostage by youtube than individual creators.
stickfigure 7y ago
Nobody wants to step up So step up. Or are you just too comfortable in your armchair?
- ericd 7y ago
  Extreme network effects make this an unreasonable thing to ask.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  There have been plenty of attempts, nearly all of them failed (with the rest holding onto niche markets)
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't cross into personal attack. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
cameronbrown 7y ago
Nobody wants to admit this because everyone here hates ads, but they (ads) are the thing these other YouTube competitors lack and the reason they're not taking off.

14 7y ago

I for one am glad at this though I am sure the fine could have been exponentially larger. The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke. Their are thousands of shows targeted directly at my kids. I can even clearly hear one video my kid likes to watch starts out with saying “look kids” so tell me how that is not directed at kids. I use an adblocker but when I go to my moms she doesn’t have it set up on her iPad. The kids shows are bombarded with ads for adult products like cars or you name it. They are marketing towards kids and I can’t stand it.

ty38 7y ago
> the fine could have been exponentially larger. 200,000,000^2 is 4e16, which is more wealth than exists in the entire world. Which exponent did you mean?
- cududa 7y ago
  Exponentially larger on a per user basis
cududa 7y ago
Why in the hell are you being downvoted for saying YouTube targets children?
- techntoke 7y ago
  Because children have these things called parents, that are allowing unrestricted access to a platform that they failed to read and follow the terms and conditions of. There is also a YouTube kids app, specifically geared towards helping filter child-appropriate content and advertising policies. I'm personally no fan of YouTube myself, as it constantly recommends channels and videos that I have no interest in and that I often find to be despicable based on my actual interests. I loathe that it does this, but I have the choice of not using it. What would you prefer... Every site you going to require that you sign in and verify your identity before being able to use the service, and sign some type of agreement that you won't let a minor or child access it? Same goes to cigarettes and alcohol by the way.

echelon 7y ago

As I understand it, YouTube remains unprofitable to this date. What game is Google playing at here? Creators are unhappy with the strong arming, users are displeased with the ads and the comments and, well, everything. Parents are unhappy with the creepy videos targeting children. YouTube music is a travesty and is likely to fail like all the other half-baked Google products. YouTube gaming... is dead. Now they're getting fined for something they could have easily avoided. What in the hell is Google doing, and why do they suck at this so bad? I can imagine so many better product experiences. Why can't they get their act together?

avocado4 7y ago
> As I understand it, YouTube remains unprofitable to this date. Source?
- echelon 7y ago
  Nothing recent, but Google does not disclose figures from YouTube. https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f... https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-... (not sure how to un-ampify this)
  - imihai1988 7y ago
    Tangential, you need to click the (i) and then click the actual url ( although they didn't actually mark it as a hyperlink). Amp is getting more and more frustrating w/ each iteration.
mav3rick 7y ago
Yeah right. The competition is doing so well. Try running a video hosting service within the frameworks of the law. It's still the most popular service by a longshot. Classic HN being delusional again.
- 7y ago

ct520 7y ago

Love it

ummonk 7y ago

Why did every top level comment here get downvoted? Did this get brigaded by Youtube / Google employees?

dang 7y ago
Not as far as I can tell. Many of the comments in this thread have broken the site guidelines and/or are not particularly thoughtful. Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes or making insinuations about brigading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

wongarsu 7y ago

I must say I'm perplexed how every single top level comment is downvoted. This isn't normal.

dang 7y ago
The topic turns out to be unusually emotional and many of the comments in the thread are pretty bad.

dang 7y ago

All: this seems to be quite a provocative topic, as with many submissions that involve children and parents. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.

classics2 7y ago

That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.

warent 7y ago
I agree. There are many people who I've seen say "this is just a warning to other companies" or "this is just the beginning" but it seems like that's always the case. The fact is, the fine needs to be multiples of quarterly revenue. It needs to be so high not to destroy the company, but enough to make it limp and force it to borrow money to make it through. THEN these will be taken seriously. Until then, these aren't fines. These are price tags for unethical, law-breaking behavior, and these companies are more than happy to pay it.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Force them to borrow money? How big a fine we talking in your authoritarian world? How many people's jobs is it worth losing? No. It does not need to be so damn high. YouTube is aware of the warning, and yes it likely deserves another (order of magnitude larger) fine if they do nothing. But arbitrary fines right out of the gate just hurt everyone.
Zenst 7y ago
For a large company, but it does make any new startup/competition go thru a whole extra hoop, which does favour established players.
judge2020 7y ago
Unless they've made huge steps in their profit margins, it's still pretty big consisering they weren't profitable in 2015 [0] and likely still not profitable in 2016 [1]. The only argument you could make is the immense value of user data Google gets from YT to show relevant ads outside of the platform. 0: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-google-any-money-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-go... 1: https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojcicki/ https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...

dgzl 7y ago

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

theobeers 7y ago
Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
longtom 7y ago
I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.
  - longtom 7y ago
    But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0 https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf

_hardwaregeek 7y ago

This is literally a Silicon Valley plotline. Right down to COPPA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5QUZMNLT3M

asd234h4 7y ago

Hey dang, Quit posting unsubstantiated comments. If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.

freediver 7y ago

The fine feels as a millionaire got fined $200 for the same violation.

Zenst 7y ago

Will this create a new virtual 18+ wall before you can view/access content/services. Not that it is illegal by any law to offer such services to those younger, just that the lawyers and the accountants sat down and concluded that the risks can outgrow the rewards. Be interesting how the industry and various platforms navigate this whole area, but I'm mindful that they may well just cut them off period as just less hassle for them.

Youden 7y ago
I'm not sure of your age but I grew up with the internet and this "18+ wall" has already existed for a long time. I don't think I know anybody who didn't lie about their birth year on a signup form at some point to get around an age check.
- Zenst 7y ago
  That's kinda the point, the whole age verification avenue has no credibility and personally I've lied for privacy reasons as why do you need the day and month if the year is 18+. But the area of concern I was raising was such walls being used for no other reason other than risk liability exposure dictated by liability insurance costs. That with age verification systems that are that do credable checks being an area of growth thru demand. Such systems will become easier to implement and the ability to just lie, becomes much more complicated. Hence people being cut off, not thru legal reasons, but for effect - accountants. That's the worry I was raising.

thathndude 7y ago

This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. But on top of that, it’s $200m into the black hole that is our dysfunctional and bloated federal government. How do The Impacted children whose privacy was violated actually benefit. It’s all ridiculous.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. > Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. No, it isn't. A company's valuation is not money in the bank. The proper comparison is to profit.
- notyourday 7y ago
  Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.
  - true_religion 7y ago
    It’s okay for a fine to be insignificant. Parking tickets are insignificant fines too, but in aggregate act to control parking behavior. What’s needed is better enforcement, not more stringent fines.
    - notyourday 7y ago
      Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web. Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.
      - leetcrew 7y ago

notyourday 7y ago

That number is missing two zeros for it to be anything other than a mosquito bite