6 ms·

Reading Facebook's own reports? "“If a new transatlantic data transfer framework is not adopted and we are unable to continue to rely on SCCs (standard contract

Reading Facebook's own reports? "“If a new transatlantic data transfer framework is not adopted and we are unable to continue to rely on SCCs (standard contractual clauses) or rely upon other alternative means of data transfers from Europe to the United States, we will likely be unable to offer a number of our most significant products and services, including Facebook and Instagram, in Europe."

gowld 5y ago
That's not a threat, that's a disclosure of what the law says. Every multinational non-user-siloed company makes the same disclosure.
avalys 5y ago
That's not a "threat". It's a legally-required warning in a regulatory filing for investors of a possible negative event which might occur.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  That doesn't mean it's not also a threat. It just means that if it is a threat they can always say "That's not a "threat". It's a legally-required warning in a regulatory filing for investors of a possible negative event which might occur." Facebook knew journalists would see this and may have wanted it to be reported on.
  - Nimitz14 5y ago
    LOL Impossible to argue with such "logic".
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    Given that the warning is, as you say yourself, legally required, what do you consider to be the most likely primary reason for it being published? It being legally required (and the consequences of violating that), or "knowing journalists would see this"? Especially since this wasn't the first report where it was included...
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It's also enough to make news and sound bites. We are talking about mass media here, not a peer review scientific journal.
paxys 5y ago
They are telling their shareholders if something becomes illegal they will have to cease doing it. You will find similar "threats" in every financial statement or disclosure by every public company.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  It already is illegal. Just no regulatory body made a crackdown on it, not yet at least.

gowld 5y ago

That's not a threat, that's a disclosure of what the law says. Every multinational non-user-siloed company makes the same disclosure.

avalys 5y ago

That's not a "threat". It's a legally-required warning in a regulatory filing for investors of a possible negative event which might occur.

colinmhayes 5y ago
That doesn't mean it's not also a threat. It just means that if it is a threat they can always say "That's not a "threat". It's a legally-required warning in a regulatory filing for investors of a possible negative event which might occur." Facebook knew journalists would see this and may have wanted it to be reported on.
- Nimitz14 5y ago
  LOL Impossible to argue with such "logic".
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Given that the warning is, as you say yourself, legally required, what do you consider to be the most likely primary reason for it being published? It being legally required (and the consequences of violating that), or "knowing journalists would see this"? Especially since this wasn't the first report where it was included...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It's also enough to make news and sound bites. We are talking about mass media here, not a peer review scientific journal.

paxys 5y ago

They are telling their shareholders if something becomes illegal they will have to cease doing it. You will find similar "threats" in every financial statement or disclosure by every public company.

Isinlor 5y ago
It already is illegal. Just no regulatory body made a crackdown on it, not yet at least.