4 ms·

it's frustrating. 5 billion for a fine over the course of 8 years of operation? They made $17 billion this quarter.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
greenyoda 6y ago
The judge did threaten Facebook with harsher treatment if they ever ended up in his court again. From the end of the court decision: > The Court ends by noting that under the Stipulated Order it retains jurisdiction over this matter, including to enforce its terms. See Stipulated Order at 5. In the event that the parties return to this Court because the United States alleges—once again—that Facebook has reneged on its promises and continued to violate the law or the terms of the amended administrative order, the Court may not apply quite the same deference to the terms of a proposed resolution. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, a district court must be especially deferential “when the proposed decree comes to a district judge in the first instance as a settlement between the parties.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461. But, on the other hand, when “a district judge has administered a consent decree for some period of time,” and is therefore likely more familiar with the relevant context, “the lack of an initial trial is, at least marginally, less of an inhibition” when weighing the appropriateness of a proposed remedy.[1] [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6876914/4-23-20-Facebook-Order.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6876914/4-23-20-F... (linked in the first sentence of the article)
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  They'll just use that as proof the judge is biased and ask him to recuse. Honestly, if I had another life, I would become the tech-savvy judge. Give Facebook a 300% revenue fine.
- antjanus 6y ago
  The problem is that threatening doesn't mean much. The $5b isn't much in the grand scheme of things, and I doubt we'll be as "lucky" to get a judge that feels similarly next time.
ta1234567890 6y ago
Agreed. That's as if someone who makes $100k/year, and made that money while operating for 8 years doing something illegal, then was ordered to pay a fine of $900 and told not to do it again or else.
will4274 6y ago
I disagree in part. The articles notes: > The settlement also obligates Facebook to pay $5 billion in civil penalties; that penalty is significantly larger than the next-closest penalty the FTC has ever won–which topped out at $22.5 million. With $5 billion, I believe we're within a factor of ten of the right fine, which isn't something I always believe about these settlements. Compared to e.g. Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, resulting in a fine of $27 thousand - $5 billion is at least a line on the spreadsheet.
- antjanus 6y ago
  That is a good point. We're getting closer to fines that actually hurt the companies enough not to do it again. Not there yet, but closer. The frustrating part is that they kept doing it even after they said they wouldn't. And FB amassed a sizeable revenue breaking a law while snuffing out competition, growing bigger, and reaping the benefits whilst still paying a fine that was essentially "worth it". I heard in a podcast the idea how the next "Facebook" can't do what FB did to grow -- because all that stuff is now regulated, closely watched, and fined.
justapassenger 6y ago
Made? Revenue is not profit. Their net income was just under $5B this quarter Edit: quarter, not half
- josefx 6y ago
  Hard to nail any international company on a real number. All that tax dodging[1] makes it hard to know how much they actually make and how much they are moving through shell companies. Better just stick all the executives and stock owners into prison, that is harder to fake. [1]https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-law...
  - jazzyjackson 6y ago
    Now that you mention it, wouldn't click fraud be an excellent money laundering environment? All these bullshit content farms (taboola, outbrain, etc) that provide no value to the people actually using the web -- it's just a paycheck to publishers, where is the value coming from? People are buying and selling click traffic (likes, follows, youtube views), suppose you just buy advertising and it gets placed on domains all over the web -- if I want to transfer money to you, you just need to spin up a domain, get taboola recommending some gut health articles, and I can buy ad placements and point my botnet at your domain, clicking on the ads I paid for so you get all the kickbacks -- something like that I'm not in the ad brokering business myself! Or the money laundering business for that matter :)
- antjanus 6y ago
  You mean that this quarter alone, they made $5B in pure profit? I'm not sure if that helps any argument against what I said.
Bombthecat 6y ago
Hmm Facebook paid quite a lot of fines in the last two years. (worldwide) would be interesting how much, when you add them up.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

The judge did threaten Facebook with harsher treatment if they ever ended up in his court again. From the end of the court decision: > The Court ends by noting that under the Stipulated Order it retains jurisdiction over this matter, including to enforce its terms. See Stipulated Order at 5. In the event that the parties return to this Court because the United States alleges—once again—that Facebook has reneged on its promises and continued to violate the law or the terms of the amended administrative order, the Court may not apply quite the same deference to the terms of a proposed resolution. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, a district court must be especially deferential “when the proposed decree comes to a district judge in the first instance as a settlement between the parties.” Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461. But, on the other hand, when “a district judge has administered a consent decree for some period of time,” and is therefore likely more familiar with the relevant context, “the lack of an initial trial is, at least marginally, less of an inhibition” when weighing the appropriateness of a proposed remedy.[1] [1] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6876914/4-23-20-Facebook-Order.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6876914/4-23-20-F... (linked in the first sentence of the article)

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
They'll just use that as proof the judge is biased and ask him to recuse. Honestly, if I had another life, I would become the tech-savvy judge. Give Facebook a 300% revenue fine.
antjanus 6y ago
The problem is that threatening doesn't mean much. The $5b isn't much in the grand scheme of things, and I doubt we'll be as "lucky" to get a judge that feels similarly next time.

ta1234567890 6y ago

Agreed. That's as if someone who makes $100k/year, and made that money while operating for 8 years doing something illegal, then was ordered to pay a fine of $900 and told not to do it again or else.

will4274 6y ago

I disagree in part. The articles notes: > The settlement also obligates Facebook to pay $5 billion in civil penalties; that penalty is significantly larger than the next-closest penalty the FTC has ever won–which topped out at $22.5 million. With $5 billion, I believe we're within a factor of ten of the right fine, which isn't something I always believe about these settlements. Compared to e.g. Janet Jackson at the Superbowl, resulting in a fine of $27 thousand - $5 billion is at least a line on the spreadsheet.

antjanus 6y ago
That is a good point. We're getting closer to fines that actually hurt the companies enough not to do it again. Not there yet, but closer. The frustrating part is that they kept doing it even after they said they wouldn't. And FB amassed a sizeable revenue breaking a law while snuffing out competition, growing bigger, and reaping the benefits whilst still paying a fine that was essentially "worth it". I heard in a podcast the idea how the next "Facebook" can't do what FB did to grow -- because all that stuff is now regulated, closely watched, and fined.

justapassenger 6y ago

Made? Revenue is not profit. Their net income was just under $5B this quarter Edit: quarter, not half

josefx 6y ago
Hard to nail any international company on a real number. All that tax dodging[1] makes it hard to know how much they actually make and how much they are moving through shell companies. Better just stick all the executives and stock owners into prison, that is harder to fake. [1]https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-law...
- jazzyjackson 6y ago
  Now that you mention it, wouldn't click fraud be an excellent money laundering environment? All these bullshit content farms (taboola, outbrain, etc) that provide no value to the people actually using the web -- it's just a paycheck to publishers, where is the value coming from? People are buying and selling click traffic (likes, follows, youtube views), suppose you just buy advertising and it gets placed on domains all over the web -- if I want to transfer money to you, you just need to spin up a domain, get taboola recommending some gut health articles, and I can buy ad placements and point my botnet at your domain, clicking on the ads I paid for so you get all the kickbacks -- something like that I'm not in the ad brokering business myself! Or the money laundering business for that matter :)
antjanus 6y ago
You mean that this quarter alone, they made $5B in pure profit? I'm not sure if that helps any argument against what I said.

Bombthecat 6y ago

Hmm Facebook paid quite a lot of fines in the last two years. (worldwide) would be interesting how much, when you add them up.