6 ms·

From the dissenting opinion by Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips: > These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. And

by 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
    Edited my post with some more details. While LinkedIn is a social media site of sorts, it's outside what I believe the focus of the investigation to be.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      LinkedIn has a lot of teens on it actually. Very talented teens some, others are teens of average talent level. But they do have teens. They are also about 3 times bigger than discord. I think you could argue either way, because there may be a larger absolute number of teens on discord? The numbers are not broken out enough to tell. But given the nature of what we're dealing with, I wouldn't discount the idea of them not wanting anyone taking a closer look at what they are doing. I myself am always suspicious of the "Think of the children!!!" crowd.
      - josho 6y ago
        Somehow if my teenaged kids spent as much time in LinkedIn networking business relationships as they did in Snapchat I wouldn't quite mind as much. Regardless, I think you've missed the part where the FTC said what they were gathering information on, e.g. "how[social media] practices affect children and teens."
        bilbo0s 6y ago
        I think you've missed the part where the FTC said what they were gathering information on, e.g. "how[social media] practices affect children and teens." I didn't miss that part. That's why I said that I don't trust people who say they are "thinking of the children". If you trust their intentions, well, we can peaceably agree to disagree.
        HexagonalKitten 6y ago
        That sounds wrong. Many of my best friends live every day thinking of their children and their future. I welcome congress acting like this. I don't trust laws justified with only a soundbite though, whatever the soundbite is.
- creddit 6y ago
  By some metrics, iMessage is the biggest messaging service in the US. Arguably, from the POV of the FTC as a US regulator, WhatsApp shouldn't be included but Apple SHOULD be. This is of course ignoring other social features of Apple products such as Game Center, Find My Friends and Facetime.
  - josho 6y ago
    Apple Message is a message service. Its features include a way to personalize messages. It's not collecting personal/demographic information, it's not trying to increase user engagement (addictiveness), it's not serving ads. So, it clearly is outside the scope of the information that the FTC is trying to gather.
    - roland-s 6y ago
      iMessage is E2EE (according to Apple). But Apple can still see who's messaging who. With that you get an intimate social graph. Similar to what the NSA has on US citizens via phone records. Apple also says they don't sell your personal info to advertisers. But they can still use that data however they like, and there's nothing stopping them from selling that data at some point in the future.
      - 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
        Why would they want to sell it. They could license access to it for recurring revenue, like other Big Tech companies. The most important control that customers should seek is not control over the sale/transfer of data, it is control over how the data may be used, by anyone. For example, if the data comes with terms that say it cannot be used for advertising purposes, then what are the chances anyone can sell it to advertisers. The "We do not/will not sell your data" line is a deliberate red herring, of no more value than "We take security very seriously". (Great comment, BTW.)
    - creddit 6y ago
      > It's not collecting personal/demographic information Sure is! On my iCloud account, Apple has my address, my location, the location of all of my devices, my Apple Card is tied directly to purchases, and much more! Did you know iMessage specifically even used to be linked directly to Facebook's evil social graph? > it's not trying to increase user engagement (addictiveness) Citation? I would bet a large amount of money that Apple is trying to increase engagement. Why do you think they make products like memoji or features like pinned threads? > it's not serving ads. True! But, uh, is WhatsApp? https://www.wsj.com/articles/whatsapp-backs-off-controversial-plan-to-sell-ads-11579207682 https://www.wsj.com/articles/whatsapp-backs-off-controversia... Here's iMessage generating revenue through the sale of Apps that integrate with it: https://www.fastcompany.com/3063925/apples-imessage-economy-is-already-big-business https://www.fastcompany.com/3063925/apples-imessage-economy-... Did you know the App Store has a recommendation system to suggest apps to you? It's based on the other apps that you purchase and possibly other signals that I'm not aware of. Apple, of course, gets its 30% cut of that.
- rileymat2 6y ago
  > Apple isn't even a social media company It is not primarily a social media company but they have a big portfolio which includes social features, one example, I can link friends to my apple watch exercise app.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Sharing exercise data with a small group of friends is nothing like what people mean when they say ‘Social Media’
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Can you justify why Amazon should be covered and Apple shouldn't be? Your justification applies to both.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    Amazon owns Twitch, which is both a social media site and a video streaming service.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Very reasonable.
- HexagonalKitten 6y ago
  > social media sites targeting the alt-right Parler's front page makes no mention of this. Pls source. Or, do you just mean that they take the people who get kicked off of twitter? Because then, yeah - if you kick people off one place they'll tend to be found somewhere else.
elliekelly 6y ago
Commissioner Phillips makes a pretty disingenuous argument. The purpose of FTC Act Section 6(b), as I'm sure Phillips well knows, is to collect information in order to inform the FTC's ability to propose policy and legislation. In fact reports written from 6(b) requests are often called "studies" or "policy research" in the media. > These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. That's usually the goal when you're sampling how an industry operates. And so disingenuous are the other points he makes that I honestly don't believe Phillips believes most of what he's written. But when I got to the sentence where he called the FTC's privacy staff "the most impactful privacy enforcers in the world" and the FTC's regulation of consumer privacy "an effective enforcement program" it's hard to take anything else he says seriously. I'll admit I did get a kick out of him citing Executive Order 13892[1] which basically says government agencies must be "fair and transparent" when collecting information from regulated entities. How deliciously ironic he's willing to put his foot down in the name of unfair, confusing, and overly broad information gathering. [1]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22624/promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-transparency-and-fairness-in-civil-administrative-enforcement-and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22...
trhway 6y ago
>Paperwork Reduction Act sounds funny as they just disturbed the hives of the probably best financed legal departments out there and they did it using the core issue for the companies owning those legal departments.
ineedasername 6y ago
I see no problem focusing on the largest companies that rely on personal data. The "10 entities limit" doesn't seem like an inappropriate use of a loophole here. You have draw the line somewhere. Look at the largest and use them to make the general guidelines (or new laws) that will govern all companies. Then look at other companies as needed
feedbackwelcome 6y ago
Hi jawzz, if you don't mind someone would like to ask you these questions: >I have a question for this user, since he/she chose a good section to quote (it means he/she really looked into it). >I'd be really interested in his/her opinion or thoughts, and or any other kind of feedback: >Yesterday there was a widely reported leak of 2 million embedded agents of a foreign government (you can see it in dozens of places). >I'd ask this user, does he/she think that this FTC order could be by one of these embedded agents in order to gather private information about citizens, for the purposes of censorship? >I noticed that a few days ago [5 days ago], YouTube has a controversial censorship policy, [it generated 3055 comments when discussed on Hacker News]. Videos discussing political opinion on a certain topic without calling for violence are removed. >I'd like to just keep it to the facts of whether this FTC action could, in this user's opinion, be part of such a thing. [Gathering information on users for the purposes of censorship] Thanks for any opinion or feedback.

by jawzz 6y ago

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
  Edited my post with some more details. While LinkedIn is a social media site of sorts, it's outside what I believe the focus of the investigation to be.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    LinkedIn has a lot of teens on it actually. Very talented teens some, others are teens of average talent level. But they do have teens. They are also about 3 times bigger than discord. I think you could argue either way, because there may be a larger absolute number of teens on discord? The numbers are not broken out enough to tell. But given the nature of what we're dealing with, I wouldn't discount the idea of them not wanting anyone taking a closer look at what they are doing. I myself am always suspicious of the "Think of the children!!!" crowd.
    - josho 6y ago
      Somehow if my teenaged kids spent as much time in LinkedIn networking business relationships as they did in Snapchat I wouldn't quite mind as much. Regardless, I think you've missed the part where the FTC said what they were gathering information on, e.g. "how[social media] practices affect children and teens."
      - bilbo0s 6y ago
        I think you've missed the part where the FTC said what they were gathering information on, e.g. "how[social media] practices affect children and teens." I didn't miss that part. That's why I said that I don't trust people who say they are "thinking of the children". If you trust their intentions, well, we can peaceably agree to disagree.
        HexagonalKitten 6y ago
        That sounds wrong. Many of my best friends live every day thinking of their children and their future. I welcome congress acting like this. I don't trust laws justified with only a soundbite though, whatever the soundbite is.
creddit 6y ago
By some metrics, iMessage is the biggest messaging service in the US. Arguably, from the POV of the FTC as a US regulator, WhatsApp shouldn't be included but Apple SHOULD be. This is of course ignoring other social features of Apple products such as Game Center, Find My Friends and Facetime.
- josho 6y ago
  Apple Message is a message service. Its features include a way to personalize messages. It's not collecting personal/demographic information, it's not trying to increase user engagement (addictiveness), it's not serving ads. So, it clearly is outside the scope of the information that the FTC is trying to gather.
  - roland-s 6y ago
    iMessage is E2EE (according to Apple). But Apple can still see who's messaging who. With that you get an intimate social graph. Similar to what the NSA has on US citizens via phone records. Apple also says they don't sell your personal info to advertisers. But they can still use that data however they like, and there's nothing stopping them from selling that data at some point in the future.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
      Why would they want to sell it. They could license access to it for recurring revenue, like other Big Tech companies. The most important control that customers should seek is not control over the sale/transfer of data, it is control over how the data may be used, by anyone. For example, if the data comes with terms that say it cannot be used for advertising purposes, then what are the chances anyone can sell it to advertisers. The "We do not/will not sell your data" line is a deliberate red herring, of no more value than "We take security very seriously". (Great comment, BTW.)
  - creddit 6y ago
    > It's not collecting personal/demographic information Sure is! On my iCloud account, Apple has my address, my location, the location of all of my devices, my Apple Card is tied directly to purchases, and much more! Did you know iMessage specifically even used to be linked directly to Facebook's evil social graph? > it's not trying to increase user engagement (addictiveness) Citation? I would bet a large amount of money that Apple is trying to increase engagement. Why do you think they make products like memoji or features like pinned threads? > it's not serving ads. True! But, uh, is WhatsApp? https://www.wsj.com/articles/whatsapp-backs-off-controversial-plan-to-sell-ads-11579207682 https://www.wsj.com/articles/whatsapp-backs-off-controversia... Here's iMessage generating revenue through the sale of Apps that integrate with it: https://www.fastcompany.com/3063925/apples-imessage-economy-is-already-big-business https://www.fastcompany.com/3063925/apples-imessage-economy-... Did you know the App Store has a recommendation system to suggest apps to you? It's based on the other apps that you purchase and possibly other signals that I'm not aware of. Apple, of course, gets its 30% cut of that.
rileymat2 6y ago
> Apple isn't even a social media company It is not primarily a social media company but they have a big portfolio which includes social features, one example, I can link friends to my apple watch exercise app.
- zepto 6y ago
  Sharing exercise data with a small group of friends is nothing like what people mean when they say ‘Social Media’
renewiltord 6y ago
Can you justify why Amazon should be covered and Apple shouldn't be? Your justification applies to both.
- duskwuff 6y ago
  Amazon owns Twitch, which is both a social media site and a video streaming service.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Very reasonable.
HexagonalKitten 6y ago
> social media sites targeting the alt-right Parler's front page makes no mention of this. Pls source. Or, do you just mean that they take the people who get kicked off of twitter? Because then, yeah - if you kick people off one place they'll tend to be found somewhere else.

elliekelly 6y ago

Commissioner Phillips makes a pretty disingenuous argument. The purpose of FTC Act Section 6(b), as I'm sure Phillips well knows, is to collect information in order to inform the FTC's ability to propose policy and legislation. In fact reports written from 6(b) requests are often called "studies" or "policy research" in the media. > These are different companies, some of which have strikingly different business models. That's usually the goal when you're sampling how an industry operates. And so disingenuous are the other points he makes that I honestly don't believe Phillips believes most of what he's written. But when I got to the sentence where he called the FTC's privacy staff "the most impactful privacy enforcers in the world" and the FTC's regulation of consumer privacy "an effective enforcement program" it's hard to take anything else he says seriously. I'll admit I did get a kick out of him citing Executive Order 13892[1] which basically says government agencies must be "fair and transparent" when collecting information from regulated entities. How deliciously ironic he's willing to put his foot down in the name of unfair, confusing, and overly broad information gathering. [1]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22624/promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-transparency-and-fairness-in-civil-administrative-enforcement-and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22...

trhway 6y ago

>Paperwork Reduction Act sounds funny as they just disturbed the hives of the probably best financed legal departments out there and they did it using the core issue for the companies owning those legal departments.

ineedasername 6y ago

I see no problem focusing on the largest companies that rely on personal data. The "10 entities limit" doesn't seem like an inappropriate use of a loophole here. You have draw the line somewhere. Look at the largest and use them to make the general guidelines (or new laws) that will govern all companies. Then look at other companies as needed

feedbackwelcome 6y ago

Hi jawzz, if you don't mind someone would like to ask you these questions: >I have a question for this user, since he/she chose a good section to quote (it means he/she really looked into it). >I'd be really interested in his/her opinion or thoughts, and or any other kind of feedback: >Yesterday there was a widely reported leak of 2 million embedded agents of a foreign government (you can see it in dozens of places). >I'd ask this user, does he/she think that this FTC order could be by one of these embedded agents in order to gather private information about citizens, for the purposes of censorship? >I noticed that a few days ago [5 days ago], YouTube has a controversial censorship policy, [it generated 3055 comments when discussed on Hacker News]. Videos discussing political opinion on a certain topic without calling for violence are removed. >I'd like to just keep it to the facts of whether this FTC action could, in this user's opinion, be part of such a thing. [Gathering information on users for the purposes of censorship] Thanks for any opinion or feedback.