21 ms·

FTC issues orders to nine social media and video streaming services

373 points by gbrown_ 6y ago

TruthHurts44 6y ago
Huge government overreach...disgusting.
gbrown_ 6y ago
Title truncated to fit within character limits.
kaiju0 6y ago
Something big is brewing. I think there is going to be a big push to reign in social media. I've thought long about this and can only think of one way to regulate them. I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. After that the content is not seen no matter how popular. It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. To increase your separation score you must merit it with a reason and stick to it.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  If that was a legal rule for the internet it would make it illegal for most people to communicate with each other. I don't think this idea is well thought through. That would actually be the government regulating speech and arguably freedom of assembly.
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    Its not regulating the speech, its regulating the audience. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Thats basically the same thing. For example, if the government made newspapers illegal, that would technically be "limiting the audience", but it would still be unconstitutional.
      - zwm 6y ago
        I think the flaw is to compare old medium to today's technology. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What can we try then iterate?
        stale2002 6y ago
        > I think the flaw is to compare old medium to today's technology. Courts apply laws to new technology all the time. And in this situation, it is very obvious that the courts would rule government restrictions on social media, that make it illegal for people to broadcast on social media, would be unconstitutional. > What can we try then Well we can't ban people from using social media, or for broadcasting to many people. That would very obviously be unconstitutional.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      The first amendment also protects freedom of association. You don't have a right for people to hear you, but the government doesn't have an unlimited power to restrict your ability to actually reach people. If government prevents people hearing you speak, that's a pretty serious curb on freedom of association.
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      The point is the government doesn't get to decide who is allowed to listen.
    - CyberDildonics 6y ago
      You have the right to be heard by people that want to hear you. Nothing says you have to be broadcast or promoted and nothing says you can impose on people who don't want to hear you, but the government telling people they can't talk to certain other people is not the same thing. Also, in another comment you said "This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer." Is this sarcasm and you are contradicting yourself or do you actually think it would have been great to suppress BLM organization and protests?
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > It will kill virility Virility is great if social contagions are assumed benign. I think that's an assumption many no longer make.
- trentnix 6y ago
  It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. Why do they have a responsibility to 'reign in stupidity' in the first place? Who gets to decide what's stupid and what's not? I understand removing illegal content. I understand providing guidelines around content that may not be acceptable for minors. I understand removing (or compartmentalizing) content that is "off topic" (such as a platform dedicated to eSports not wanting traditional sports content). But every attempt that can be made to 'reign in stupidity' means censorship of one form or another and will inevitably be abused.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    > It will kill virility I really wonder if it will do that. Probably not.
    - bradwood 6y ago
      Perhaps the poster meant "vitality"
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer. I'm not so sure about that. That kind of policy would definitely put the breaks on uncoordinated viral peer-to-peer spread, but that just might lead to resurgence of coordinating organizations acting as clearinghouses for such things. That could be good, at least in places with decent civil liberties, since I believe broadcast speech is bit like code: it's better when there's some peer review and sanity checks before it's distributed.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    > This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer. How do you know that? Civil rights and protest movements in general have traditionally not relied on social media or even digital communication of any sort. Couldn't the mechanisms once employed to organize activists still work today? The answer is yes, they can. I know for a fact the Baptist church down the street from me participated in organizing many of the protests in my city this summer.
  - joshuakelly 6y ago
    Strongly doubt that would have been a net effect considering the amount of corporate attention and support was received. Ferguson in 2014 might be a better example case, where there was little to no corporate involvement. Your point is true though, no doubt. People often retort that no one cares about decentralization, well we're going to find out if that's really true over the rest of the decade.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  I don’t think the FTC is (or ever will) reign in how “far” content can spread. The FTC is a consumer protection agency so they are most definitely focused on advertising and data collection, not user-generated content or misinformation.
- g_p 6y ago
  This seems interesting - clearly the friction in sharing everything with everyone is far lower online than before. Before, you had to consume finite resources (time, energy, postage stamps, etc.) to tell someone else about something. This gave a natural rate limit. As a thought experiment, what if the degrees of separation were less rigidly enforced, but people's "power of voice" decays the further it goes from those who directly follow them, resulting in a similar result? Then for every user, there's a probability they'll see or not see a given post (significantly reducing as the degree of separation increases). Clearly this isn't ideal and there's compounding factors (if you have 3 friends share it, should that probability be additive?) Share rate limits in WhatsApp led to people imploring others to copy paste fake news to share it to others, so clearly this isn't as simple as limiting normal shares.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    Any governmental rules restricting who can talk to whom or to how many others will run into first amendment issues, at least in the USA.
    - g_p 6y ago
      Not disagreeing, but I do wonder how the first amendment sits with regards to no guaranteed audience - you can likely be free to say something, while still having others free not to amplify it indefinitely. To an extent I think the big digital platforms already do this, just in a non transparent way, to try to curate the most engaging and click-worthy content, rather than the most thought provoking.
  - nathanyz 6y ago
    Friction is exactly what I believe the end answer is for social media, fake news, viral video, etc. Prior to the Internet, all communication included substantially larger amounts of friction. Broadcasting your opinion required acquiring TV, Radio, or Newspaper time/space. Sure there were low cost alternatives like standing in the public square and shouting your beliefs, but that is a far cry from tweeting out something hateful from the comfort of your couch while you eat pizza and watch unlimited streaming video content. The friction was both a drag on productivity AND a safety mechanism to prevent mass spread of inaccurate or low quality content. I feel like the Internet removed all of that friction which is great in many cases, but particularly bad for accuracy of information. It's like the gossip that used to spread through towns by word of mouth, can now become truth within days just by going viral. And once enough people hear the same thing, isn't it now true? Perception is reality. Just look to the divisions in the world. Each side when talking amongst themselves has one truth while the opposing side has a completely different one. Doesn't matter which truth is accurate when both sides are unified in their belief that it is their side's story that is correct. Friction is necessary, to at least slow the contagion of inaccurate information. Right now the incentives are misaligned. Viral content that makes the consumer feel good provides the most economic return for companies like Google and Facebook. While the system is setup to reward this, how could you expect a profit seeking business to do anything else but optimize for it?
- processing 6y ago
  So all content that is not in the "stupidity" classifier (who decides that?) also loses its chance to be surfaced? I think this needs to be thought through some more.
- SkyPuncher 6y ago
  > As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. How do you define this? Seems impossible to define and easy to circumvent. ---- By your own definition, I wouldn't be able to see or respond to your content since we're likely separated by more than two degrees.
- kodah 6y ago
  Personally I'd like to go back to an age before social media. It seems social media has had limited substantive success for anyone and has really created more problems than it's worth. Historically I've avoided expressing my views on abolishment but now people are trying to develop fear-mongering strategies around decentralization, so here I am back at abolition. I'd love to find a happy medium but I don't think it's possible. Social media companies, search companies, national news (who is dependent on social media for income), politicians (who are dependent on social media for likes and shares), and law enforcement working in coordination to do an arbitrarily good thing (disrupt the flow of misinformation) was both eye opening and terrifying. These tools can be used for good but they're also the keystone tools of autocracy and are used largely for reasons that require interpretation and narrative following. My point is that we don't need these kind of problems. We have space exploration ahead of us, major advancements in technology are still needed, and we need a continuum of people who are willing to work together despite whatever differences they may have ideologically and otherwise. I don't think limiting scope or killing virility will achieve these ends.
  - asciident 6y ago
    So I like social media, and get a lot of benefit from it. I like that it's free and supported by targeted ads, rather than a paid service. Since we disagree, and I imagine there are many people with the same opinions as both you and me, why not make it opt-in, so you only encounter social media if you choose to make an account, and then still only see it if you go to it and/or install it intentionally? Wait, that's how it is now...
    - kodah 6y ago
      Social media isn't opt-in though. Facebook has routinely collected data on non-Facebook users, my name/likeness/content can appear on social media without my consent, and there are hardly controls for protecting such things in any meaningful sense. I deleted Instagram months ago and I have friends that have routinely told me that profile is still up, just in a limited capacity. How is this opt-in? An even better example of it's non-opt-in nature is that I went as far as to ban all social media via my VPN and router. The result was unexpected when looking at American news, it often quotes from and derives sources from social media. Reading news articles that were mostly Twitter statements or reactions made it hard to discern what the articles were even about in the first place.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. That's an absolutely terrible idea. For example, I doubt you and I are two degrees away. I would have never seen this. I doubt I have two degrees of separation from most of the interesting content posted on this site.
  - Firerouge 6y ago
    Exactly, if you restrict access based on degrees of separation, you're essentially restricting access to information by geography, which is sure to reinforce regional differences and radicalize people further by hiding dissenting opinions
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      Pre social media, we lived in a world where information was generally separated by geography. Your comment suggests that by returning to such a state, it would result in increased radicalisation. The implication is therefore that social media has decreased radicalisation. I’m not sure I agree.
      - jedberg 6y ago
        Social media has both increased and decreased radicalization at the same time. For those who already had radical ideas, who previously couldn't find others with the same ideas, they are now more radicalized (think conspiracy theories and so on). For those with open minds, it's allowed them to learn new things from people far away with very different ideas.
        jlarocco 6y ago
        > For those with open minds, it's allowed them to learn new things from people far away with very different ideas. It can do that, but that can also backfire because the current social media platforms aren't trustworthy or transparent. Advertising, "influencers", fake likes, bots, and all of that let small fringe groups amplify and normalize their ideas, so when open minded people come along, they see thousands of likes and hundreds of people promoting some idea, and they can get the impression it's a much more popular or common idea than it really is. In other words, social media makes it very easy for a vocal minority to push their views on people, and it's nearly impossible for other users to discover when that's happening.
- aliabs 6y ago
  This is an awful idea lol wut. That limits the free flow of information as well as ideation.
- tqi 6y ago
  1. Who gets to decide who does or does not have merit? What criteria would you use? 2. "Rein", not "reign," and "virality", not "virility."
- mikem170 6y ago
  I've always thought that their algorithms are the biggest problems - when someone else gets to choose what you see. (That's also why I think it's far to go after their common carrier status if they do this.) It would be better to be able to manage your own feed, things like chronological order, filtering, etc.
- topkai22 6y ago
  I'm not sure that would do much to reign in virality given the number of mega accounts there are- how much of twitter is n+2 from Donald Trump, for example?
- viraptor 6y ago
  > As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. You just killed the whole dating app industry. And job boards. And regional marketplaces.
tape_measure 6y ago
Facebook, WhatsApp, Snap, Twitter, YouTube, ByteDance, Twitch, Reddit, and Discord.
- nvrspyx 6y ago
  It might be useful to put TikTok in parentheses for ByteDance, since that's their flagship product and most people (myself included) do/did not know that ByteDance is the company behind TikTok.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kiro 6y ago
    On the contrary I would guess most people here know what ByteDance is. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bytedance https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bytedance
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Why list Facebook, then list WhatsApp, but not Instagram? Is Instagram not part of it then? If WhatsApp wasn't there, I'd assume they're both under FB but listing WhatsApp separately is strange.
  - mtoddsmith 6y ago
    Doesn't Facebook manage the ad network that would show up on Instagram?
  - fnbr 6y ago
    I bet it’s due to a weird corporate structure that Facebook has.
- askvictor 6y ago
  Specifically says Amazon, and not Twitch (though Amazon owns Twitch), which is interesting given they have Youtube but not Google/Alphabet.
vineyardmike 6y ago
From the article: Amazon.com, Inc. [twitch], ByteDance Ltd., which operates the short video service TikTok, Discord Inc., Facebook, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Snap Inc., Twitter, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and YouTube LLC. The FTC is seeking information specifically related to: how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; how they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers; whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information; how they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and how their practices affect children and teens.
- offtop5 6y ago
  >how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; Facebook can definitely figure out your race , and the race of who you've dated. I told this story here before but back in the early days of facebook, I had dated a Korean girl for a brief period of time and then the moment we broke up via facebook messenger, I start getting spammed with ads for dating websites featuring Asian women ( maybe the algorithm wasn't advanced enough to figure out my ex was Korean specifically). I think a lot of this is just posturing, I don't see Joe Biden being as harsh on social media as Trump has been. This might be a final hurrah against social media as conservatives have been very upset with them lately.
  - capital_guy 6y ago
    This is not posturing. The FTC is independent of any given administration.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - djohnston 6y ago
      Doesn't each administration appoint the chairman? That seems similar to saying the Supreme Court is independent. Maybe on paper, but certainly not statistically or in practice.
mrkramer 6y ago
"Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter..." How convenient.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  your point? You think it's ironic? These social media companies are the most effective channels for any organization to reach the widest audience. Which validates why the FTC has social media accounts and why the FTC is investigating them.
KukiAirani 6y ago
This is heartening news. We are finally approaching the moment where addictive social media is handled with the same seriousness with which big tobacco was treated.
- offtop5 6y ago
  I doubt it, much of this is just going to be finger waving. Case and poin the FTC sued the Match Group for fraud, but I can guarantee you nothing's going to come of it. If you could pay a $5 million fine after increasing your valuation by billions, you'd do that too. If anything I think there's a massive need for individuals to regulate their own social media. Since I know these things can actively harm me, I don't use social media or online dating. But I also wouldn't pass laws stopping people from using this stuff. It's like eating junk food, sure the world would be a better place if no one ate McDonald's, but everyone has a right to eat as many big Macs they want to
- devmunchies 6y ago
  It's funny to think that people might look back at how much time and attention people from 2010 to 2020 spent on their device and think how backwards we were. Like how "dumb" past generations were for putting lead in gasoline.
  - cactus2093 6y ago
    Seems more likely to me that all the overreaction to social media will be what is viewed as silly and old-fashioned. History is absolutely full of very similar examples of people freaking out over how new mediums like novels or bicycles or radio or rock music or whatever are a waste of time and/or are destroying the children's minds.
    - phatfish 6y ago
      There are also examples of when ignoring addictive behaviour -- or just pretending there isn't a problem -- leads to disaster. The world wide web was the new medium, social media is the attention grabbing (and addictive for some) hook that enables a couple of large corporations to charge more for advertising impressions.
jedberg 6y ago
This will be more interesting if they make the results public (are they required to do so?).
mrkramer 6y ago
TikTok already released details of its recommendation algorithm [1] so it's out there in public domain and free accessible. I'm not a lawyer but some of this information that FTC is demanding are trade secrets of these companies and they are not willing to give them just like that. [1] https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you/ https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-vide...
jkelleyrtp 6y ago
From the one dissenting statement by the FTC board: -- > The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce. "all Documents Relating to the Company’s or any other Person’s strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to: a) business strategies or plans; b) short-term and long-range strategies and objectives; c) expansion or retrenchment strategies or plans; d) research and development efforts; e) sales and marketing strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to, strategies or plans to expand the Company’s customer base or increase sales and marketing to particular customer segments (e.g., a user demographic); f) strategies or plans to reduce costs, improve products or services (e.g., expanding features or functionality), or otherwise become more competitive;" > Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.16 And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications. > The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  > Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach. Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.
  - jyrkesh 6y ago
    I'd love to see the law that allows the FTC to demand broad sets of documents like this without a warrant or even a purported crime. Unfortunately, I'd imagine it exists, but that it basically says "the FTC can do whatever it wants if it thinks a company is being 'abusive' or 'misleading consumers'" with some vague definition of what that means. Yet another example of Congress legislating away their ability to legislate and/or the courts' ability to judge.
    - 6y ago
rootsudo 6y ago
Now it makes sense why pornhub was so fearful and quickly deleted content.
ttul 6y ago
“Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter..”
- throwaway2048 6y ago
  I bet they even have the nerve to buy things from corporations
- nitrogen 6y ago
  You don't have to hate someone to want them to behave better.
WalterGR 6y ago
Edit: My mistake.
- soupson 6y ago
  YouTube is there.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cooljacob204 6y ago
Why did they decide to loop in Discord? If this is about targeted ads the Microsoft should have been included, tired of all the spyware on Windows 10.
- anfilt 6y ago
  I am also curious why they decided to also include discord considering so far there monetization strategies so far has been to sell stuff to users, instead of sell their uses.
- ericra 6y ago
  I'm also a bit surprised about the inclusion of Discord here. Not only is their monetization different, but their daily userbase is pretty small compared to the rest of the list (I believe Reddit would be closest). It makes me wonder if there are some concerns about what Discord is collecting/using in particular.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Maybe they think Discord will provide an example of proper corporate behavior, so they'll have answers for the "but we have to make money somehow!" and "everybody's doing it!" canards.
- ketzo 6y ago
  I would imagine it's at least partially because Discord skews pretty young, with a large audience of minors.
- sudosteph 6y ago
  My totally unsubstantiated gut feeling is that they might suspect that Discord harbors more "radicalizing" potential, compared to other social networks. Probably because discord servers are private, self-moderated, and demographically very skewed towards young men (since it's commonly used for gaming chats). I know that some of the more "troublesome" subreddits use discord to discuss sensitive topics without worrying about reddit admin censorship, so communities like those could be causing a bit of FUD around Discord as a whole.
anfilt 6y ago
Interesting, they have discord there. It's monetization strategy has been quite different than every other entity listed there. So far it's been mostly trying to sell stuff to their users. Pretty much every other company they list displays ads. Like even whats app now has plans for Ads.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Where are the ads in WhatsApp? I assume I'm lucky enough to have not been in the group they're showing ads to yet.
  - anfilt 6y ago
    If I recall from the news on it that I have read it will start in India. Also there is going to be a terms of Service change this February.
akersten 6y ago
Here is the actual order (PDF warning): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/6b-orders-file-special-reports-social-media-service-providers/6bs_order_os_final.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/6b-orders... I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of homework to do in 45 days, and is essentially the FTC asking for not only these companies' "secret sauce" but also their confidential bookkeeping. I would be astounded if none of them challenged this order. For example, requirement 12.d.: "Submit all documents related to the Company's strategies or plans, including but not limited to research and development efforts." It is not clear the FTC has this kind of authority to essentially demand "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?"
- gist 6y ago
  I will say maybe not bad the deadline. Why? Well my theory is that legal fees and help would be higher (that's right higher) if a longer time period was given. Seems counter intuitive but that's my way of looking at it. (I guess in short maybe a version of 'work expands to fill the time available for completion something like that). That said I don't feel bad for these companies at all. They have plenty of resources and plenty of money. And no reason they can't ask for and receive extensions of the time due there is no 'train leaving' at that time the info needs to board.
  - akersten 6y ago
    The 45-day thing is a minor tickle, I shouldn't have lead with it. My point is that to me it feels like this Order is a huge overreach of authority, and whether you personally do or don't feel sympathy for a certain company does not change what the government should and should not be able to ask of a company in the general case. Reading the document, the demands are wide and reaching. I would like to know how much of what they demand is actually part of the FTC's authority for what they are allowed to require companies to provide.
    - Despegar 6y ago
      It's absolutely not an "overreach." The FTC is actually starting to do their job after decades of letting industries consolidate. Congress should increase their budget so they can do more of it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jawzz 6y ago
From the dissenting opinion by Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips: > These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And the orders omit other companies engaged in business practices similar to recipients, for example, Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr, not to mention other firms the data practices of which have drawn significant government concern, like WeChat. The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies and, by limiting the number to nine, avoiding the review process required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not triggered if fewer than ten entities are subject to requests.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Hey that sounds good! They can issue another order next month, etc. Why did he dissent?
- duskwuff 6y ago
  > The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies It's almost as though the majority of the Commission recognizes that its resources are limited, and that going on a wild goose chase investigating a bunch of smaller social media companies would simply ensure that nothing would be accomplished. Apple isn't even a social media company. I have no idea why they'd be included. Gab, Parler, and Rumble are all smaller social media sites targeting the alt-right. They're so much smaller than any of the services being investigated that I feel like even mentioning them here is a dog whistle. LinkedIn is explicitly targeted at adult professionals. That puts it a bit outside the scope of the investigation as well; one of its focuses is "how [these sites'] practices affect children and teens".
  - edoceo 6y ago
    LinkedIn is social, and would have made a nice even 10 - which would trigger an oversight event.
    - duskwuff 6y ago
yalogin 6y ago
I know FB and Whatsapp are on the list but why isn't Instagram there? That is the only one left out.
- delecti 6y ago
  On the other hand, why FB and Whatsapp separately when it's the same company?
ummonk 6y ago
Kind of weird to see WhatsApp on that list but not Netflix. I wonder how much Netflix has managed to stave off scrutiny simply by creating the Social Dilemma documentary.
- true_religion 6y ago
  It's a list of companies which do not charge end-users. Netflix requires a subscription to view anything, complies with regulations about region-specific copyrights, and has zero deals with third parties. Their business model is simple. They're TV, on the internet. They buy or make tv shows, and display them to you for a fee. They're not a "platform", they're just a cable TV service.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    We all pay for Amazon Prime, and yet Amazon is on there. Netflix is a video streaming service which will "collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information". It will "determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers". It will "apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information". It will "measure, promote, and research user engagement". And "their practices affect children and teens". Netflix is responsible for an immense amount of screentime, and its algorithms are designed to maximize that screentime to reduce subscriber churn.
    - shagie 6y ago
      Amazon owns Twitch... which is a completely different beast than Amazon Prime Video.
      - gravypod 6y ago
        From the order "Identify each Social Media and Video Streaming Service provided or sold by the Company". It doesn't seem to be limited to only Social Media sites, it also includes any "Video Streaming Service". The broadest interpretation I could come up with from this statement also include the cloud video streaming/transcoding offerings Amazon provides.
spoonjim 6y ago
Why is the FTC cranking up activity in the waning days of the administration? Is there a sense that Biden won't investigate these companies and they want to kick off the investigations before he takes over?
jcjdbdndndthrow 6y ago
Transparency coming? How about if I see an ad I should be allowed to see who bought the ad? How about how they chose to target me? Is it because of my race or interests or gender or age? How about the option to opt out? How about the option to configure your future ad targets / attributes? How about no special black box algorithms? Past the addiction issues, how can these exist while guaranteeing no racial and other types of discrimination? How about no algorithm opt outs? How about no more quasi-curated trending sections and the options to see a purely organic opt-out results (Twitter moments, Twitter comments, Facebook feed/news, Google Search, YouTube trending, etc...) Finally... How about anti-consumer reparations in some form or jail time for executives?
- tekromancr 6y ago
  I get that you are using algorithm as a short-hand here; but can you elaborate and describe what type of algorithms you suggest be opt-outable? Algorithm is a super general term, but everyone uses it to describe something super-specific. I feel like everyone sorta has their own personal definition. I am in favor, at least in principal, of legislation that would curb some of the more abusive uses of datascience; but the idea of trying to legislate "algorithms" seems... fraught.
  - kdkdjhsbsthrow 6y ago
    Agree it is hard but important to do to avoid discrimination. It’s less “regulating algorithms” and more “protecting personal data and access”. Google and other big data co’s should not be allowed to profile unregulated and that’s exactly what they are doing. I think a reasonable solution is that if a company is using someone’s “personal data” (legal definition pending) to configure/curate/personalize/uniquely-alter their experience in any way, that they allow the consumer or user to change those settings. Configuration variables will open up transparency and is the first step to having a personal data right. If an “Algorithm” is too complex to allow a user to configure (black box), they need to provide a way to opt-out to a general organic / main audience one then.
- jonplackett 6y ago
jariel 6y ago
And this is happening under Trump folks. He doesn't seem to be making a fuss of it either way, and he's probably had enough time to install his folks in the FTC, so I wonder what/if there's a political angle to this. There is literally no mention of 'FTC' on either CNN or Fox landing pages right now, which is a little disturbing given the days events. If someone has material information to add about the real background on this that'd be great.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  ...either CNN or Fox... You'll notice they've also neglected to mention the 250M people on strike in India right now and for the last several weeks. Certain reports do not harmonize with the corporate narrative.
  - jariel 6y ago
    American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them. But as of late, there's been a lot of noise about FAANGS, and even some political issues around content, it's just odd that there isn't more widespread coverage. I'm really curious as to the underlying impetus for this, it's not clear to me. Zuckerberg at 'hearings' being grilled by GOP Senators about ostensible 'bias' - that is understandable, at least politically. But these FTC moves, I don't get.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      > American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them. American news outlets generally don't report on anything that they aren't getting press releases and phone calls about from companies and organizations that they're friendly with. They only do it if so many other outlets are reporting the story that they'd look bad, and then they just copy the story directly from those other outlets. They don't report negatively on sponsors, other parts of their very large and diverse companies, or any other companies that their owners or important employees are associated with, unless forced. If forced, they copy what has been reported and add nothing but mild apologia and FUD.
dadHasSpoken88 6y ago
After a contentious few years politically, the powers that be are targeting the platforms they think are influencing people away from American political norms. Not to say these companies should not be held accountable, but they should target the industry. One sides political rhetoric being pushed down or up in terms of visibility can’t possibly be public preference itself. They must insist the public’s free speech include both sides. It can’t be generational churn seeking to deprecate outdated, immoral political norms; racism and feudalism are forever. The political class is worried their back room gerrymandered system is being end run around.
14 6y ago
I would love to read YouTube’s big reveal on how they are targeting children. It does not take an expert to see it. Just search up any kids shows and wait for the ads to come in. Should kids be targeted by any ads? I don’t know but feel probably they shouldn’t. But even if they should be shown ads I highly question the type of ads I have seen while watching shows with my kids. Honestly I can’t think of a single example ad off the top of my head but while watching clearly kids shows have seen enough that I have often thought “what the hell youtube”. A part of me believes they want the ads to be offensive to the parent so they consider the premium account.
blackrock 6y ago
What does this order do? HN should have a submission statement, that’s pinned at the top of the comments. So we can review that without visiting the source site.
- krapp 6y ago
  >HN should have a submission statement, that’s pinned at the top of the comments. So we can review that without visiting the source site. No, stop being lazy or paranoid or whatever and just RTFA. The entire premise of this forum is to engage with the content presented and to discuss it, to gratify intellectual curiosity. Pernicious habits like only reading the title or wanting a Cliffs' Notes version just sucks what little soul this place has left out of it.
random5634 6y ago
So pathetic. Despite the vast amount of documentation the FTC demands (which seems wildly overbroad), I can answer their question in pretty complete substance here - for free. 1) how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; Everything is tracked, and they have a very good idea of your demographic information. They track all interactions on the platform in giant data lakes, including clickstream activity showing sequences of actions, they collect all browser features, ip addresses etc, they collect all referral information. If their code is used by other websites, they collect all the clickstream and profile data from those services. They use publicly available datasets, census tract information, and datasets the govt provides such as DMV databases and voter registration files to enrich the data. They may synthesis what are called "features" from this data. This is used for social media updates, fraud control and ad targeting among other purposes. 2) How they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers; Based on a machine learning models which look at the qualify and performance of ad copy related to folks who have been a) targeted by advertiser by specific criteria they then b) develop and estimate of which other users would also be interested and their level of interest based on all data points they maintain in the user profile, scored along an economic axis and user engagement and satisfaction targets (ie, all ads vs no ads). 3) Whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information; Yes - they do on a huge scale, and AWS / Google and others are busy designing custom chips to help speed up this type of analysis. 4) How they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and They make their platforms as addictive as possible, with notifications, stimiulations. A popular book for these companies might be "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" if the FTC actually cared about being educated at all in this space. 5) How their practices affect children and teens. Affect them significantly, children are much easier to "hook", be it with computer games, e-cigs, or social media or even sugar or lack of sleep. The effects of all of these are very negative. Parents can have a power impact on these items. Does anyone think social media companies do not use personal information and monetization of that to provide their hyperscale "free" services?
madrox 6y ago
I find it ironic that the bottom of this press release is a blurb encouraging you to follow them on Facebook and Twitter.
hertzrat 6y ago
I think Canada is taking some steps in this area too but for the life of me I couldn’t find any details, just mission statements
schappim 6y ago
Had a good laugh at the bottom of the release: "Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter(link is external), get consumer alerts, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources." Like us on the platforms we're issuing orders to.
- uncomputation 6y ago
  "Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent."
  - ksm1717 6y ago
    “”Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent.” I am very intelligent.”
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    This isn't a direct comment on this case in particular, but if you are preaching the death of capitalism (is where this pasta arises from) while using not only the freedom to do so and a platform delivered to you solely by a market, without any self-reflection then you bet I'm going to point that out.
    - PrefixKitten 6y ago
      Not the parent commenter but the only product I spend any money on whatsoever anymore is Benzedrex so beyond that any product being delivered to me is entirely at the expense of whatever company is involved in it's dissemination.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      > "while using not only the freedom" Ancient Greeks had freedoms, markets and democracy, and never heard the word 'capitalism'
    - uncomputation 6y ago
      Do you... You realize that your entire argument is essentially "Oh you are going to critique capitalism on a website funded through capitalism? Curious! I am very intelligent." Like... do you not have self-reflection?
pcj-github 6y ago
As much as I despise social media and the effect it is having on the general population, after reading the (50-page) request and the dissent, this request by the FTC is completely bananas. This is essentially how it reads: "Foreach social media and streaming service, provide an audit of all electrons passing through or near the service. Account for the precise position & momentum of said particles, the method by which they are tracked, and the person or persons responsible for auditing bias of said electrons against members of the current political party. You have five days to complete the report."
- austincheney 6y ago
  I would really hope there is more to this. Social media companies are private entities, and as such can be as deliberately, or not, biased and full of censorship against other persons or groups as much as they want. More so, they can openly declare such bias against their best interests without risk of immediate consequences thanks to Section 230. They are legally protected by law. I really wish the current administration would stop crying about the big bad world and how unfair it is. This only appeals to really insecure people. If they really wanted to “fix” the problem the appropriate regulatory body could provide new regulation against activity not already protected by legislation.
plandis 6y ago
I feel bad for the people that will inevitably need to cancel their time off work in one of the worst years on record to be able to meet this 45 day deadline.
strogonoff 6y ago
The goal of FTC order P205402 is stated as assisting “a study of such policies, practices, and procedures”. With that in mind, the somewhat arbitrary and limited choice of entities[0][1], hard deadlines[1], and scope of requested data[2] to me personally somewhat make sense. [0] Given it’s a study, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the results will be extrapolated and generalized to the rest of the industry. [1] The more time passes, the less representative the results would be. If there were more than nine entities chosen, a drawn-out review process would be essentially an advance warning. [2] Yes, they are asking for a lot, but reporting being unable to provide certain type of data should be useful for the study still as absence of certain type of data is a meaningful result in itself. I don’t have a strong opinion on other aspects (and it’s definitely no small feat to gather all the data), but at first approach—assuming good faith on the side of FTC—this order looks akin to a quiz of a random selection of school students with the aim not to praise or reprimand individuals but to assess the education system in general. Given enough advance notice, students would be drilled to ace specifically this quiz, negating its point.
tanilama 6y ago
Honestly more curious about how does the FTC verifies the submitted report to be an accurate representation of what the company is actually executing?
ggggtez 6y ago
> Commissioner Noah Phillips, who voted against the study, issued a separate dissent. > The orders are "an undisciplined foray into a wide variety of topics, some only tangentially related to the stated focus of this investigation," Phillips said, arguing that the probe was a waste of FTC resources and would not provide the public with valuable information or address issues of consumer privacy. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1584154/dissenting_statement_of_commissioner_noah_joshua_phillips_regarding_social_media_and_video_streaming.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...
_cs2017_ 6y ago
I wonder how Trump reconciles this with his promise to severely reduce regulation? If it was initiated by Congress, it would not be surprising: the GOP-controlled Senate is not nearly as anti-regulation as Trump. (And certainly the Democractic controlled House is very pro-regulation.) But the FTC is (typically) is under direct control of the administration, at least to the extent that its leadership is appointed by the White House.
mhh__ 6y ago
Discord? Definitely can be addictive but the server-model isn't like (say) even a small facebook group
twirlock 6y ago
Pretty much all of those sites should, in fact, have to explain that. Reddit in particular is a pile of garbage and it wasn't long ago that their admins went around saying things like "we know you better than you do."
rurban 6y ago
I wonder what they will do? Threaten to move their headquarters to the Bahamas or some other shell state?

373 points by gbrown_ 6y ago

TruthHurts44 6y ago

Huge government overreach...disgusting.

gbrown_ 6y ago

Title truncated to fit within character limits.

kaiju0 6y ago

Something big is brewing. I think there is going to be a big push to reign in social media. I've thought long about this and can only think of one way to regulate them. I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. After that the content is not seen no matter how popular. It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. To increase your separation score you must merit it with a reason and stick to it.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
If that was a legal rule for the internet it would make it illegal for most people to communicate with each other. I don't think this idea is well thought through. That would actually be the government regulating speech and arguably freedom of assembly.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  Its not regulating the speech, its regulating the audience. You have the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Thats basically the same thing. For example, if the government made newspapers illegal, that would technically be "limiting the audience", but it would still be unconstitutional.
    - zwm 6y ago
      I think the flaw is to compare old medium to today's technology. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. What can we try then iterate?
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > I think the flaw is to compare old medium to today's technology. Courts apply laws to new technology all the time. And in this situation, it is very obvious that the courts would rule government restrictions on social media, that make it illegal for people to broadcast on social media, would be unconstitutional. > What can we try then Well we can't ban people from using social media, or for broadcasting to many people. That would very obviously be unconstitutional.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    The first amendment also protects freedom of association. You don't have a right for people to hear you, but the government doesn't have an unlimited power to restrict your ability to actually reach people. If government prevents people hearing you speak, that's a pretty serious curb on freedom of association.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    The point is the government doesn't get to decide who is allowed to listen.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    You have the right to be heard by people that want to hear you. Nothing says you have to be broadcast or promoted and nothing says you can impose on people who don't want to hear you, but the government telling people they can't talk to certain other people is not the same thing. Also, in another comment you said "This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer." Is this sarcasm and you are contradicting yourself or do you actually think it would have been great to suppress BLM organization and protests?
bigbubba 6y ago
> It will kill virility Virility is great if social contagions are assumed benign. I think that's an assumption many no longer make.
trentnix 6y ago
It will kill virility but should reign in stupidity being broadcast. Why do they have a responsibility to 'reign in stupidity' in the first place? Who gets to decide what's stupid and what's not? I understand removing illegal content. I understand providing guidelines around content that may not be acceptable for minors. I understand removing (or compartmentalizing) content that is "off topic" (such as a platform dedicated to eSports not wanting traditional sports content). But every attempt that can be made to 'reign in stupidity' means censorship of one form or another and will inevitably be abused.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > It will kill virility I really wonder if it will do that. Probably not.
  - bradwood 6y ago
    Perhaps the poster meant "vitality"
vineyardmike 6y ago
This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > This is also great for hiding and suppressing organization of social uprising. This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer. I'm not so sure about that. That kind of policy would definitely put the breaks on uncoordinated viral peer-to-peer spread, but that just might lead to resurgence of coordinating organizations acting as clearinghouses for such things. That could be good, at least in places with decent civil liberties, since I believe broadcast speech is bit like code: it's better when there's some peer review and sanity checks before it's distributed.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > This would have totally suppressed all the BLM content this summer. How do you know that? Civil rights and protest movements in general have traditionally not relied on social media or even digital communication of any sort. Couldn't the mechanisms once employed to organize activists still work today? The answer is yes, they can. I know for a fact the Baptist church down the street from me participated in organizing many of the protests in my city this summer.
- joshuakelly 6y ago
  Strongly doubt that would have been a net effect considering the amount of corporate attention and support was received. Ferguson in 2014 might be a better example case, where there was little to no corporate involvement. Your point is true though, no doubt. People often retort that no one cares about decentralization, well we're going to find out if that's really true over the rest of the decade.
elliekelly 6y ago
I don’t think the FTC is (or ever will) reign in how “far” content can spread. The FTC is a consumer protection agency so they are most definitely focused on advertising and data collection, not user-generated content or misinformation.
g_p 6y ago
This seems interesting - clearly the friction in sharing everything with everyone is far lower online than before. Before, you had to consume finite resources (time, energy, postage stamps, etc.) to tell someone else about something. This gave a natural rate limit. As a thought experiment, what if the degrees of separation were less rigidly enforced, but people's "power of voice" decays the further it goes from those who directly follow them, resulting in a similar result? Then for every user, there's a probability they'll see or not see a given post (significantly reducing as the degree of separation increases). Clearly this isn't ideal and there's compounding factors (if you have 3 friends share it, should that probability be additive?) Share rate limits in WhatsApp led to people imploring others to copy paste fake news to share it to others, so clearly this isn't as simple as limiting normal shares.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Any governmental rules restricting who can talk to whom or to how many others will run into first amendment issues, at least in the USA.
  - g_p 6y ago
    Not disagreeing, but I do wonder how the first amendment sits with regards to no guaranteed audience - you can likely be free to say something, while still having others free not to amplify it indefinitely. To an extent I think the big digital platforms already do this, just in a non transparent way, to try to curate the most engaging and click-worthy content, rather than the most thought provoking.
- nathanyz 6y ago
  Friction is exactly what I believe the end answer is for social media, fake news, viral video, etc. Prior to the Internet, all communication included substantially larger amounts of friction. Broadcasting your opinion required acquiring TV, Radio, or Newspaper time/space. Sure there were low cost alternatives like standing in the public square and shouting your beliefs, but that is a far cry from tweeting out something hateful from the comfort of your couch while you eat pizza and watch unlimited streaming video content. The friction was both a drag on productivity AND a safety mechanism to prevent mass spread of inaccurate or low quality content. I feel like the Internet removed all of that friction which is great in many cases, but particularly bad for accuracy of information. It's like the gossip that used to spread through towns by word of mouth, can now become truth within days just by going viral. And once enough people hear the same thing, isn't it now true? Perception is reality. Just look to the divisions in the world. Each side when talking amongst themselves has one truth while the opposing side has a completely different one. Doesn't matter which truth is accurate when both sides are unified in their belief that it is their side's story that is correct. Friction is necessary, to at least slow the contagion of inaccurate information. Right now the incentives are misaligned. Viral content that makes the consumer feel good provides the most economic return for companies like Google and Facebook. While the system is setup to reward this, how could you expect a profit seeking business to do anything else but optimize for it?
processing 6y ago
So all content that is not in the "stupidity" classifier (who decides that?) also loses its chance to be surfaced? I think this needs to be thought through some more.
SkyPuncher 6y ago
> As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. How do you define this? Seems impossible to define and easy to circumvent. ---- By your own definition, I wouldn't be able to see or respond to your content since we're likely separated by more than two degrees.
kodah 6y ago
Personally I'd like to go back to an age before social media. It seems social media has had limited substantive success for anyone and has really created more problems than it's worth. Historically I've avoided expressing my views on abolishment but now people are trying to develop fear-mongering strategies around decentralization, so here I am back at abolition. I'd love to find a happy medium but I don't think it's possible. Social media companies, search companies, national news (who is dependent on social media for income), politicians (who are dependent on social media for likes and shares), and law enforcement working in coordination to do an arbitrarily good thing (disrupt the flow of misinformation) was both eye opening and terrifying. These tools can be used for good but they're also the keystone tools of autocracy and are used largely for reasons that require interpretation and narrative following. My point is that we don't need these kind of problems. We have space exploration ahead of us, major advancements in technology are still needed, and we need a continuum of people who are willing to work together despite whatever differences they may have ideologically and otherwise. I don't think limiting scope or killing virility will achieve these ends.
- asciident 6y ago
  So I like social media, and get a lot of benefit from it. I like that it's free and supported by targeted ads, rather than a paid service. Since we disagree, and I imagine there are many people with the same opinions as both you and me, why not make it opt-in, so you only encounter social media if you choose to make an account, and then still only see it if you go to it and/or install it intentionally? Wait, that's how it is now...
  - kodah 6y ago
    Social media isn't opt-in though. Facebook has routinely collected data on non-Facebook users, my name/likeness/content can appear on social media without my consent, and there are hardly controls for protecting such things in any meaningful sense. I deleted Instagram months ago and I have friends that have routinely told me that profile is still up, just in a limited capacity. How is this opt-in? An even better example of it's non-opt-in nature is that I went as far as to ban all social media via my VPN and router. The result was unexpected when looking at American news, it often quotes from and derives sources from social media. Reading news articles that were mostly Twitter statements or reactions made it hard to discern what the articles were even about in the first place.
jedberg 6y ago
> I would propose that people are allowed x degrees of separation. That's an absolutely terrible idea. For example, I doubt you and I are two degrees away. I would have never seen this. I doubt I have two degrees of separation from most of the interesting content posted on this site.
- Firerouge 6y ago
  Exactly, if you restrict access based on degrees of separation, you're essentially restricting access to information by geography, which is sure to reinforce regional differences and radicalize people further by hiding dissenting opinions
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    Pre social media, we lived in a world where information was generally separated by geography. Your comment suggests that by returning to such a state, it would result in increased radicalisation. The implication is therefore that social media has decreased radicalisation. I’m not sure I agree.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      Social media has both increased and decreased radicalization at the same time. For those who already had radical ideas, who previously couldn't find others with the same ideas, they are now more radicalized (think conspiracy theories and so on). For those with open minds, it's allowed them to learn new things from people far away with very different ideas.
      - jlarocco 6y ago
        > For those with open minds, it's allowed them to learn new things from people far away with very different ideas. It can do that, but that can also backfire because the current social media platforms aren't trustworthy or transparent. Advertising, "influencers", fake likes, bots, and all of that let small fringe groups amplify and normalize their ideas, so when open minded people come along, they see thousands of likes and hundreds of people promoting some idea, and they can get the impression it's a much more popular or common idea than it really is. In other words, social media makes it very easy for a vocal minority to push their views on people, and it's nearly impossible for other users to discover when that's happening.
aliabs 6y ago
This is an awful idea lol wut. That limits the free flow of information as well as ideation.
tqi 6y ago
1. Who gets to decide who does or does not have merit? What criteria would you use? 2. "Rein", not "reign," and "virality", not "virility."
mikem170 6y ago
I've always thought that their algorithms are the biggest problems - when someone else gets to choose what you see. (That's also why I think it's far to go after their common carrier status if they do this.) It would be better to be able to manage your own feed, things like chronological order, filtering, etc.
topkai22 6y ago
I'm not sure that would do much to reign in virality given the number of mega accounts there are- how much of twitter is n+2 from Donald Trump, for example?
viraptor 6y ago
> As a regular user I can only go n+2 connections. You just killed the whole dating app industry. And job boards. And regional marketplaces.

tape_measure 6y ago

Facebook, WhatsApp, Snap, Twitter, YouTube, ByteDance, Twitch, Reddit, and Discord.

nvrspyx 6y ago
It might be useful to put TikTok in parentheses for ByteDance, since that's their flagship product and most people (myself included) do/did not know that ByteDance is the company behind TikTok.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Kiro 6y ago
  On the contrary I would guess most people here know what ByteDance is. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bytedance https://hn.algolia.com/?q=bytedance
ehsankia 6y ago
Why list Facebook, then list WhatsApp, but not Instagram? Is Instagram not part of it then? If WhatsApp wasn't there, I'd assume they're both under FB but listing WhatsApp separately is strange.
- mtoddsmith 6y ago
  Doesn't Facebook manage the ad network that would show up on Instagram?
- fnbr 6y ago
  I bet it’s due to a weird corporate structure that Facebook has.
askvictor 6y ago
Specifically says Amazon, and not Twitch (though Amazon owns Twitch), which is interesting given they have Youtube but not Google/Alphabet.

vineyardmike 6y ago

From the article: Amazon.com, Inc. [twitch], ByteDance Ltd., which operates the short video service TikTok, Discord Inc., Facebook, Inc., Reddit, Inc., Snap Inc., Twitter, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., and YouTube LLC. The FTC is seeking information specifically related to: how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; how they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers; whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information; how they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and how their practices affect children and teens.

offtop5 6y ago
>how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; Facebook can definitely figure out your race , and the race of who you've dated. I told this story here before but back in the early days of facebook, I had dated a Korean girl for a brief period of time and then the moment we broke up via facebook messenger, I start getting spammed with ads for dating websites featuring Asian women ( maybe the algorithm wasn't advanced enough to figure out my ex was Korean specifically). I think a lot of this is just posturing, I don't see Joe Biden being as harsh on social media as Trump has been. This might be a final hurrah against social media as conservatives have been very upset with them lately.
- capital_guy 6y ago
  This is not posturing. The FTC is independent of any given administration.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - djohnston 6y ago
    Doesn't each administration appoint the chairman? That seems similar to saying the Supreme Court is independent. Maybe on paper, but certainly not statistically or in practice.

mrkramer 6y ago

"Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter..." How convenient.

devmunchies 6y ago
your point? You think it's ironic? These social media companies are the most effective channels for any organization to reach the widest audience. Which validates why the FTC has social media accounts and why the FTC is investigating them.

KukiAirani 6y ago

This is heartening news. We are finally approaching the moment where addictive social media is handled with the same seriousness with which big tobacco was treated.

offtop5 6y ago
I doubt it, much of this is just going to be finger waving. Case and poin the FTC sued the Match Group for fraud, but I can guarantee you nothing's going to come of it. If you could pay a $5 million fine after increasing your valuation by billions, you'd do that too. If anything I think there's a massive need for individuals to regulate their own social media. Since I know these things can actively harm me, I don't use social media or online dating. But I also wouldn't pass laws stopping people from using this stuff. It's like eating junk food, sure the world would be a better place if no one ate McDonald's, but everyone has a right to eat as many big Macs they want to
devmunchies 6y ago
It's funny to think that people might look back at how much time and attention people from 2010 to 2020 spent on their device and think how backwards we were. Like how "dumb" past generations were for putting lead in gasoline.
- cactus2093 6y ago
  Seems more likely to me that all the overreaction to social media will be what is viewed as silly and old-fashioned. History is absolutely full of very similar examples of people freaking out over how new mediums like novels or bicycles or radio or rock music or whatever are a waste of time and/or are destroying the children's minds.
  - phatfish 6y ago
    There are also examples of when ignoring addictive behaviour -- or just pretending there isn't a problem -- leads to disaster. The world wide web was the new medium, social media is the attention grabbing (and addictive for some) hook that enables a couple of large corporations to charge more for advertising impressions.

jedberg 6y ago

This will be more interesting if they make the results public (are they required to do so?).

mrkramer 6y ago

TikTok already released details of its recommendation algorithm [1] so it's out there in public domain and free accessible. I'm not a lawyer but some of this information that FTC is demanding are trade secrets of these companies and they are not willing to give them just like that. [1] https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-videos-for-you/ https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/how-tiktok-recommends-vide...

jkelleyrtp 6y ago

From the one dissenting statement by the FTC board: -- > The 6(b) orders are rife with broad (and sometimes vague) specifications that burden analysis and oversight could have helped reduce. "all Documents Relating to the Company’s or any other Person’s strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to: a) business strategies or plans; b) short-term and long-range strategies and objectives; c) expansion or retrenchment strategies or plans; d) research and development efforts; e) sales and marketing strategies or plans, Including, but not limited to, strategies or plans to expand the Company’s customer base or increase sales and marketing to particular customer segments (e.g., a user demographic); f) strategies or plans to reduce costs, improve products or services (e.g., expanding features or functionality), or otherwise become more competitive;" > Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach.16 And that is just one of the order’s 50-plus specifications. > The biggest problem is that today’s 6(b) orders simply cover too many topics to make them likely to result in the production of comparable, usable information.

iamacyborg 6y ago
> Such a request would be suited to an antitrust investigation. But as part of an inquiry ostensibly aimed at consumer privacy practices, it amounts to invasive government overreach. Rather ironic to consider this "invasive government overreach" but not to levy the same accusations towards the perpetrators of surveillance capitalism.
- jyrkesh 6y ago
  I'd love to see the law that allows the FTC to demand broad sets of documents like this without a warrant or even a purported crime. Unfortunately, I'd imagine it exists, but that it basically says "the FTC can do whatever it wants if it thinks a company is being 'abusive' or 'misleading consumers'" with some vague definition of what that means. Yet another example of Congress legislating away their ability to legislate and/or the courts' ability to judge.
  - 6y ago

rootsudo 6y ago

Now it makes sense why pornhub was so fearful and quickly deleted content.

ttul 6y ago

“Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter..”

throwaway2048 6y ago
I bet they even have the nerve to buy things from corporations
nitrogen 6y ago
You don't have to hate someone to want them to behave better.

WalterGR 6y ago

Edit: My mistake.

soupson 6y ago
YouTube is there.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cooljacob204 6y ago

Why did they decide to loop in Discord? If this is about targeted ads the Microsoft should have been included, tired of all the spyware on Windows 10.

anfilt 6y ago
I am also curious why they decided to also include discord considering so far there monetization strategies so far has been to sell stuff to users, instead of sell their uses.
ericra 6y ago
I'm also a bit surprised about the inclusion of Discord here. Not only is their monetization different, but their daily userbase is pretty small compared to the rest of the list (I believe Reddit would be closest). It makes me wonder if there are some concerns about what Discord is collecting/using in particular.
jessaustin 6y ago
Maybe they think Discord will provide an example of proper corporate behavior, so they'll have answers for the "but we have to make money somehow!" and "everybody's doing it!" canards.
ketzo 6y ago
I would imagine it's at least partially because Discord skews pretty young, with a large audience of minors.
sudosteph 6y ago
My totally unsubstantiated gut feeling is that they might suspect that Discord harbors more "radicalizing" potential, compared to other social networks. Probably because discord servers are private, self-moderated, and demographically very skewed towards young men (since it's commonly used for gaming chats). I know that some of the more "troublesome" subreddits use discord to discuss sensitive topics without worrying about reddit admin censorship, so communities like those could be causing a bit of FUD around Discord as a whole.

anfilt 6y ago

Interesting, they have discord there. It's monetization strategy has been quite different than every other entity listed there. So far it's been mostly trying to sell stuff to their users. Pretty much every other company they list displays ads. Like even whats app now has plans for Ads.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Where are the ads in WhatsApp? I assume I'm lucky enough to have not been in the group they're showing ads to yet.
- anfilt 6y ago
  If I recall from the news on it that I have read it will start in India. Also there is going to be a terms of Service change this February.

akersten 6y ago

Here is the actual order (PDF warning): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/6b-orders-file-special-reports-social-media-service-providers/6bs_order_os_final.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/6b-orders... I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of homework to do in 45 days, and is essentially the FTC asking for not only these companies' "secret sauce" but also their confidential bookkeeping. I would be astounded if none of them challenged this order. For example, requirement 12.d.: "Submit all documents related to the Company's strategies or plans, including but not limited to research and development efforts." It is not clear the FTC has this kind of authority to essentially demand "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?"

gist 6y ago
I will say maybe not bad the deadline. Why? Well my theory is that legal fees and help would be higher (that's right higher) if a longer time period was given. Seems counter intuitive but that's my way of looking at it. (I guess in short maybe a version of 'work expands to fill the time available for completion something like that). That said I don't feel bad for these companies at all. They have plenty of resources and plenty of money. And no reason they can't ask for and receive extensions of the time due there is no 'train leaving' at that time the info needs to board.
- akersten 6y ago
  The 45-day thing is a minor tickle, I shouldn't have lead with it. My point is that to me it feels like this Order is a huge overreach of authority, and whether you personally do or don't feel sympathy for a certain company does not change what the government should and should not be able to ask of a company in the general case. Reading the document, the demands are wide and reaching. I would like to know how much of what they demand is actually part of the FTC's authority for what they are allowed to require companies to provide.
  - Despegar 6y ago
    It's absolutely not an "overreach." The FTC is actually starting to do their job after decades of letting industries consolidate. Congress should increase their budget so they can do more of it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jawzz 6y ago

From the dissenting opinion by Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips: > These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And the orders omit other companies engaged in business practices similar to recipients, for example, Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr, not to mention other firms the data practices of which have drawn significant government concern, like WeChat. The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies and, by limiting the number to nine, avoiding the review process required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which is not triggered if fewer than ten entities are subject to requests.

jessaustin 6y ago
Hey that sounds good! They can issue another order next month, etc. Why did he dissent?
duskwuff 6y ago
> The only plausible benefit to drawing the lines the Commission has is targeting a number of high profile companies It's almost as though the majority of the Commission recognizes that its resources are limited, and that going on a wild goose chase investigating a bunch of smaller social media companies would simply ensure that nothing would be accomplished. Apple isn't even a social media company. I have no idea why they'd be included. Gab, Parler, and Rumble are all smaller social media sites targeting the alt-right. They're so much smaller than any of the services being investigated that I feel like even mentioning them here is a dog whistle. LinkedIn is explicitly targeted at adult professionals. That puts it a bit outside the scope of the investigation as well; one of its focuses is "how [these sites'] practices affect children and teens".
- edoceo 6y ago
  LinkedIn is social, and would have made a nice even 10 - which would trigger an oversight event.
  - duskwuff 6y ago

yalogin 6y ago

I know FB and Whatsapp are on the list but why isn't Instagram there? That is the only one left out.

delecti 6y ago
On the other hand, why FB and Whatsapp separately when it's the same company?

ummonk 6y ago

Kind of weird to see WhatsApp on that list but not Netflix. I wonder how much Netflix has managed to stave off scrutiny simply by creating the Social Dilemma documentary.

true_religion 6y ago
It's a list of companies which do not charge end-users. Netflix requires a subscription to view anything, complies with regulations about region-specific copyrights, and has zero deals with third parties. Their business model is simple. They're TV, on the internet. They buy or make tv shows, and display them to you for a fee. They're not a "platform", they're just a cable TV service.
- ummonk 6y ago
  We all pay for Amazon Prime, and yet Amazon is on there. Netflix is a video streaming service which will "collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information". It will "determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers". It will "apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information". It will "measure, promote, and research user engagement". And "their practices affect children and teens". Netflix is responsible for an immense amount of screentime, and its algorithms are designed to maximize that screentime to reduce subscriber churn.
  - shagie 6y ago
    Amazon owns Twitch... which is a completely different beast than Amazon Prime Video.
    - gravypod 6y ago
      From the order "Identify each Social Media and Video Streaming Service provided or sold by the Company". It doesn't seem to be limited to only Social Media sites, it also includes any "Video Streaming Service". The broadest interpretation I could come up with from this statement also include the cloud video streaming/transcoding offerings Amazon provides.

spoonjim 6y ago

Why is the FTC cranking up activity in the waning days of the administration? Is there a sense that Biden won't investigate these companies and they want to kick off the investigations before he takes over?

jcjdbdndndthrow 6y ago

Transparency coming? How about if I see an ad I should be allowed to see who bought the ad? How about how they chose to target me? Is it because of my race or interests or gender or age? How about the option to opt out? How about the option to configure your future ad targets / attributes? How about no special black box algorithms? Past the addiction issues, how can these exist while guaranteeing no racial and other types of discrimination? How about no algorithm opt outs? How about no more quasi-curated trending sections and the options to see a purely organic opt-out results (Twitter moments, Twitter comments, Facebook feed/news, Google Search, YouTube trending, etc...) Finally... How about anti-consumer reparations in some form or jail time for executives?

tekromancr 6y ago
I get that you are using algorithm as a short-hand here; but can you elaborate and describe what type of algorithms you suggest be opt-outable? Algorithm is a super general term, but everyone uses it to describe something super-specific. I feel like everyone sorta has their own personal definition. I am in favor, at least in principal, of legislation that would curb some of the more abusive uses of datascience; but the idea of trying to legislate "algorithms" seems... fraught.
- kdkdjhsbsthrow 6y ago
  Agree it is hard but important to do to avoid discrimination. It’s less “regulating algorithms” and more “protecting personal data and access”. Google and other big data co’s should not be allowed to profile unregulated and that’s exactly what they are doing. I think a reasonable solution is that if a company is using someone’s “personal data” (legal definition pending) to configure/curate/personalize/uniquely-alter their experience in any way, that they allow the consumer or user to change those settings. Configuration variables will open up transparency and is the first step to having a personal data right. If an “Algorithm” is too complex to allow a user to configure (black box), they need to provide a way to opt-out to a general organic / main audience one then.
jonplackett 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

And this is happening under Trump folks. He doesn't seem to be making a fuss of it either way, and he's probably had enough time to install his folks in the FTC, so I wonder what/if there's a political angle to this. There is literally no mention of 'FTC' on either CNN or Fox landing pages right now, which is a little disturbing given the days events. If someone has material information to add about the real background on this that'd be great.

jessaustin 6y ago
...either CNN or Fox... You'll notice they've also neglected to mention the 250M people on strike in India right now and for the last several weeks. Certain reports do not harmonize with the corporate narrative.
- jariel 6y ago
  American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them. But as of late, there's been a lot of noise about FAANGS, and even some political issues around content, it's just odd that there isn't more widespread coverage. I'm really curious as to the underlying impetus for this, it's not clear to me. Zuckerberg at 'hearings' being grilled by GOP Senators about ostensible 'bias' - that is understandable, at least politically. But these FTC moves, I don't get.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    > American news outlets generally don't report on issues outside their borders unless it's relevant to them. American news outlets generally don't report on anything that they aren't getting press releases and phone calls about from companies and organizations that they're friendly with. They only do it if so many other outlets are reporting the story that they'd look bad, and then they just copy the story directly from those other outlets. They don't report negatively on sponsors, other parts of their very large and diverse companies, or any other companies that their owners or important employees are associated with, unless forced. If forced, they copy what has been reported and add nothing but mild apologia and FUD.

dadHasSpoken88 6y ago

After a contentious few years politically, the powers that be are targeting the platforms they think are influencing people away from American political norms. Not to say these companies should not be held accountable, but they should target the industry. One sides political rhetoric being pushed down or up in terms of visibility can’t possibly be public preference itself. They must insist the public’s free speech include both sides. It can’t be generational churn seeking to deprecate outdated, immoral political norms; racism and feudalism are forever. The political class is worried their back room gerrymandered system is being end run around.

14 6y ago

I would love to read YouTube’s big reveal on how they are targeting children. It does not take an expert to see it. Just search up any kids shows and wait for the ads to come in. Should kids be targeted by any ads? I don’t know but feel probably they shouldn’t. But even if they should be shown ads I highly question the type of ads I have seen while watching shows with my kids. Honestly I can’t think of a single example ad off the top of my head but while watching clearly kids shows have seen enough that I have often thought “what the hell youtube”. A part of me believes they want the ads to be offensive to the parent so they consider the premium account.

blackrock 6y ago

What does this order do? HN should have a submission statement, that’s pinned at the top of the comments. So we can review that without visiting the source site.

krapp 6y ago
>HN should have a submission statement, that’s pinned at the top of the comments. So we can review that without visiting the source site. No, stop being lazy or paranoid or whatever and just RTFA. The entire premise of this forum is to engage with the content presented and to discuss it, to gratify intellectual curiosity. Pernicious habits like only reading the title or wanting a Cliffs' Notes version just sucks what little soul this place has left out of it.

random5634 6y ago

So pathetic. Despite the vast amount of documentation the FTC demands (which seems wildly overbroad), I can answer their question in pretty complete substance here - for free. 1) how social media and video streaming services collect, use, track, estimate, or derive personal and demographic information; Everything is tracked, and they have a very good idea of your demographic information. They track all interactions on the platform in giant data lakes, including clickstream activity showing sequences of actions, they collect all browser features, ip addresses etc, they collect all referral information. If their code is used by other websites, they collect all the clickstream and profile data from those services. They use publicly available datasets, census tract information, and datasets the govt provides such as DMV databases and voter registration files to enrich the data. They may synthesis what are called "features" from this data. This is used for social media updates, fraud control and ad targeting among other purposes. 2) How they determine which ads and other content are shown to consumers; Based on a machine learning models which look at the qualify and performance of ad copy related to folks who have been a) targeted by advertiser by specific criteria they then b) develop and estimate of which other users would also be interested and their level of interest based on all data points they maintain in the user profile, scored along an economic axis and user engagement and satisfaction targets (ie, all ads vs no ads). 3) Whether they apply algorithms or data analytics to personal information; Yes - they do on a huge scale, and AWS / Google and others are busy designing custom chips to help speed up this type of analysis. 4) How they measure, promote, and research user engagement; and They make their platforms as addictive as possible, with notifications, stimiulations. A popular book for these companies might be "Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products" if the FTC actually cared about being educated at all in this space. 5) How their practices affect children and teens. Affect them significantly, children are much easier to "hook", be it with computer games, e-cigs, or social media or even sugar or lack of sleep. The effects of all of these are very negative. Parents can have a power impact on these items. Does anyone think social media companies do not use personal information and monetization of that to provide their hyperscale "free" services?

madrox 6y ago

I find it ironic that the bottom of this press release is a blurb encouraging you to follow them on Facebook and Twitter.

hertzrat 6y ago

I think Canada is taking some steps in this area too but for the life of me I couldn’t find any details, just mission statements

schappim 6y ago

Had a good laugh at the bottom of the release: "Like the FTC on Facebook(link is external), follow us on Twitter(link is external), get consumer alerts, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources." Like us on the platforms we're issuing orders to.

uncomputation 6y ago
"Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent."
- ksm1717 6y ago
  “”Yet you participate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent.” I am very intelligent.”
- mhh__ 6y ago
  This isn't a direct comment on this case in particular, but if you are preaching the death of capitalism (is where this pasta arises from) while using not only the freedom to do so and a platform delivered to you solely by a market, without any self-reflection then you bet I'm going to point that out.
  - PrefixKitten 6y ago
    Not the parent commenter but the only product I spend any money on whatsoever anymore is Benzedrex so beyond that any product being delivered to me is entirely at the expense of whatever company is involved in it's dissemination.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    > "while using not only the freedom" Ancient Greeks had freedoms, markets and democracy, and never heard the word 'capitalism'
  - uncomputation 6y ago
    Do you... You realize that your entire argument is essentially "Oh you are going to critique capitalism on a website funded through capitalism? Curious! I am very intelligent." Like... do you not have self-reflection?

pcj-github 6y ago

As much as I despise social media and the effect it is having on the general population, after reading the (50-page) request and the dissent, this request by the FTC is completely bananas. This is essentially how it reads: "Foreach social media and streaming service, provide an audit of all electrons passing through or near the service. Account for the precise position & momentum of said particles, the method by which they are tracked, and the person or persons responsible for auditing bias of said electrons against members of the current political party. You have five days to complete the report."

austincheney 6y ago
I would really hope there is more to this. Social media companies are private entities, and as such can be as deliberately, or not, biased and full of censorship against other persons or groups as much as they want. More so, they can openly declare such bias against their best interests without risk of immediate consequences thanks to Section 230. They are legally protected by law. I really wish the current administration would stop crying about the big bad world and how unfair it is. This only appeals to really insecure people. If they really wanted to “fix” the problem the appropriate regulatory body could provide new regulation against activity not already protected by legislation.

plandis 6y ago

I feel bad for the people that will inevitably need to cancel their time off work in one of the worst years on record to be able to meet this 45 day deadline.

strogonoff 6y ago

The goal of FTC order P205402 is stated as assisting “a study of such policies, practices, and procedures”. With that in mind, the somewhat arbitrary and limited choice of entities[0][1], hard deadlines[1], and scope of requested data[2] to me personally somewhat make sense. [0] Given it’s a study, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the results will be extrapolated and generalized to the rest of the industry. [1] The more time passes, the less representative the results would be. If there were more than nine entities chosen, a drawn-out review process would be essentially an advance warning. [2] Yes, they are asking for a lot, but reporting being unable to provide certain type of data should be useful for the study still as absence of certain type of data is a meaningful result in itself. I don’t have a strong opinion on other aspects (and it’s definitely no small feat to gather all the data), but at first approach—assuming good faith on the side of FTC—this order looks akin to a quiz of a random selection of school students with the aim not to praise or reprimand individuals but to assess the education system in general. Given enough advance notice, students would be drilled to ace specifically this quiz, negating its point.

tanilama 6y ago

Honestly more curious about how does the FTC verifies the submitted report to be an accurate representation of what the company is actually executing?

ggggtez 6y ago

> Commissioner Noah Phillips, who voted against the study, issued a separate dissent. > The orders are "an undisciplined foray into a wide variety of topics, some only tangentially related to the stated focus of this investigation," Phillips said, arguing that the probe was a waste of FTC resources and would not provide the public with valuable information or address issues of consumer privacy. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1584154/dissenting_statement_of_commissioner_noah_joshua_phillips_regarding_social_media_and_video_streaming.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...

_cs2017_ 6y ago

I wonder how Trump reconciles this with his promise to severely reduce regulation? If it was initiated by Congress, it would not be surprising: the GOP-controlled Senate is not nearly as anti-regulation as Trump. (And certainly the Democractic controlled House is very pro-regulation.) But the FTC is (typically) is under direct control of the administration, at least to the extent that its leadership is appointed by the White House.

mhh__ 6y ago

Discord? Definitely can be addictive but the server-model isn't like (say) even a small facebook group

twirlock 6y ago

Pretty much all of those sites should, in fact, have to explain that. Reddit in particular is a pile of garbage and it wasn't long ago that their admins went around saying things like "we know you better than you do."

rurban 6y ago

I wonder what they will do? Threaten to move their headquarters to the Bahamas or some other shell state?