5 ms·

Fine them 4% of their annual revenue.

by hesk 5y ago

hexo 5y ago
80% of revenue would teach them better
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  Sucking up 4% of revenue is catastrophic enough (that is probably double digits of profit). The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company.
  - BugWatch 5y ago
    In this case, plenty of us won't be shedding any tears.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company. Why not, out of curiosity? We don't make this distinction for low-income folks who get parking tickets. If you don't make them truly punitive why comply? It just gets factored into the cost of doing business.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      You could just do both: start with relatively modest fines, then escalate if they don't comply.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Yup, that's more or less what I had in mind.
      - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
        Exponentially?
        TulliusCicero 5y ago
        I don't know if that's strictly necessary. Even a linear increase of 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc. seems like it could be sufficient?
    - mbreese 5y ago
      Because you want to encourage compliance — encourage the companies to do the right thing. If you make the fine too high, they’ll be scared and try to hide the offense. But fines and tickets being pegged to income is a good idea. Fixed amounts for fines are really expensive if you don’t make much money. Similarly, they aren’t much of a deterrent if they are a small amount of your income.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        I guess, the way I see it, you can offer substantial discounts if they self-report. However, if you take them to court over obvious misbehavior, and they lose, I mean ... have at them. In this case I'd want to see something progressive, starting at X% then going up Y% each month of non-compliance.
    - strken 5y ago
      A small but not negligible portion of the world does make the distinction between fines for the poor and fines for the rich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  GDPR allows 4%.
veltas 5y ago
Although significant, unfortunately I don't think 4% of revenue means as much as it should to Facebook specifically. Facebook has a distinctly high profit ratio (2020 Facebook revenue was $85 billion, net income $29 billion), so 4% of revenue means a lot less to Facebook than other companies that GDPR restrains. 4% of their revenue is $3.4 billion which is 11% of their net income. And the potential negative impact of Facebook's negligence in data handling is distinctly greater than other companies, Facebook collects far more data than most other companies and has access to far more personal data. They have somehow managed to convince a huge portion of the world's population to share a significant tap of data into their lives.

Fine them 4% of their annual revenue.

by hesk 5y ago

Fine them 4% of their annual revenue.

hexo 5y ago

80% of revenue would teach them better

throwaway3699 5y ago
Sucking up 4% of revenue is catastrophic enough (that is probably double digits of profit). The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company.
- BugWatch 5y ago
  In this case, plenty of us won't be shedding any tears.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > The goal of fines isn't to make be an extinction level event for a company. Why not, out of curiosity? We don't make this distinction for low-income folks who get parking tickets. If you don't make them truly punitive why comply? It just gets factored into the cost of doing business.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    You could just do both: start with relatively modest fines, then escalate if they don't comply.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Yup, that's more or less what I had in mind.
    - NaturalPhallacy 5y ago
      Exponentially?
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        I don't know if that's strictly necessary. Even a linear increase of 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc. seems like it could be sufficient?
  - mbreese 5y ago
    Because you want to encourage compliance — encourage the companies to do the right thing. If you make the fine too high, they’ll be scared and try to hide the offense. But fines and tickets being pegged to income is a good idea. Fixed amounts for fines are really expensive if you don’t make much money. Similarly, they aren’t much of a deterrent if they are a small amount of your income.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      I guess, the way I see it, you can offer substantial discounts if they self-report. However, if you take them to court over obvious misbehavior, and they lose, I mean ... have at them. In this case I'd want to see something progressive, starting at X% then going up Y% each month of non-compliance.
  - strken 5y ago
    A small but not negligible portion of the world does make the distinction between fines for the poor and fines for the rich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pseudalopex 5y ago
GDPR allows 4%.

veltas 5y ago

Although significant, unfortunately I don't think 4% of revenue means as much as it should to Facebook specifically. Facebook has a distinctly high profit ratio (2020 Facebook revenue was $85 billion, net income $29 billion), so 4% of revenue means a lot less to Facebook than other companies that GDPR restrains. 4% of their revenue is $3.4 billion which is 11% of their net income. And the potential negative impact of Facebook's negligence in data handling is distinctly greater than other companies, Facebook collects far more data than most other companies and has access to far more personal data. They have somehow managed to convince a huge portion of the world's population to share a significant tap of data into their lives.