6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
        bilbo0s 6y ago
        And if your friends are the politicians in charge, then maybe that would be a good argument that I should be less skeptical about the "think of the children" claim. But your friends are likely not the politicians in charge, and even if they were, I wouldn't take the word of an anonymous internet poster that said friends were wholly honest and forthright in this regard. I would remain skeptical of their intentions. The recipe for good democracy includes a healthy amount of skepticism. Skepticism is what motivates investigations and inquiries. Inquiries of the type the FTC studiously avoided by not triggering the 10 entity flag.
    - bonestamp2 6y ago
      I agree that LinkedIn probably has some similar risks to the sites that have been issued response orders. But, if the goal is create legislation around those risks, I'm not sure it is necessary (at this time) to also query LinkedIn (and the many other sites with similar risks). The ones on the list can likely provide enough information for this initial inquiry.
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.

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.
        bilbo0s 6y ago
        And if your friends are the politicians in charge, then maybe that would be a good argument that I should be less skeptical about the "think of the children" claim. But your friends are likely not the politicians in charge, and even if they were, I wouldn't take the word of an anonymous internet poster that said friends were wholly honest and forthright in this regard. I would remain skeptical of their intentions. The recipe for good democracy includes a healthy amount of skepticism. Skepticism is what motivates investigations and inquiries. Inquiries of the type the FTC studiously avoided by not triggering the 10 entity flag.
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    I agree that LinkedIn probably has some similar risks to the sites that have been issued response orders. But, if the goal is create legislation around those risks, I'm not sure it is necessary (at this time) to also query LinkedIn (and the many other sites with similar risks). The ones on the list can likely provide enough information for this initial inquiry.

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.