5 ms·

If they had to comply with local law in every area they operate it would be extremely complicated and expensive to manage. I think they fear the precedent not t

If they had to comply with local law in every area they operate it would be extremely complicated and expensive to manage. I think they fear the precedent not the dollars in this specific case. Edit: To be clear my opinion is that FB should be forced to comply, by federal action if necessary. That their business depends on not taking responsibility for the messages they choose to amplify is their problem and they should be paying the cost of that.

msbarnett 4y ago
> If they had to comply with local law in every area they operate ...then they would be on a level playing field with everybody else. The alternative ("we don't care for some of these laws in some places we operate, so we decline to follow them") is what is generally referred to as a criminal enterprise.
- munk-a 4y ago
  Precisely this - not everything scales gracefully to "big data" levels - some things require lots of customization and edgecases - sometimes for dumb reasons sometimes not. Given the effect Facebook has had on radicalization I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    But it’s not even that hard for large organizations to comply with local rules like that. They just can’t be bothered apparently.
  - hedgehog 4y ago
    100% agree.
- mszcz 4y ago
  This a hundred times. Just because you're big doesn't mean you get to choose what laws or rules you follow. If it doesn't scale without rule breaking then, well, it doesn't scale. They have enormous resources yet bitch and moan that they'd have to spend some of them to follow the rules. Pff, I'd make a shit ton more money if I didn't pay my taxes or cheat people. How would that work out for me? If a 1000 (or 10k, or whatever) businesses in aggregate have a similar market cap and revenue to them while also following the rules then I fail to see how a single company has a problem with that. If it does then maybe splitting it up will make things easier...
_jal 4y ago
"Compliance is hard" is not an excuse accepted anywhere. But just in case you actually believe this should be convincing, consider how many tax jurisdictions Facebook does business in. Do you think they just ignore all those local rules?
- wang_li 4y ago
  > "Compliance is hard" is not an excuse accepted anywhere. Happens in government without any repercussions all the time. Washington state took ten years after being ordered by the state Supreme Court to fully fund education to actually do it.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Facebook on one side "we can target your ads so specially that you can narrow down to a given city block" and to regulators "we can't narrow down closer than "United States" when complying with laws, sorry".
- hedgehog 4y ago
  I believe they should be forced to comply by whatever means we have and the liability should flow through to executives and senior employees.
- rvz 4y ago
  'X is hard' shouldn't be used as an accepted defense or an escape hatch as well either. Especially compliance.
klyrs 4y ago
The law isn't written to bend its will to multinational corporations who are making the world's richest people yet, somehow, cannot afford to follow the law. Nor should it be. If it isn't profitable to follow the cornucopia of laws regarding campaign advertising, then don't serve them!
sophacles 4y ago
If that were true, why we do we see global oil companies, global retailers, global restaurant chains, or global media conglomerates? Do you think Walmart doesn't have to deal with varying employment and product laws at the country, state, and local level for each of its stores?
- hedgehog 4y ago
  Do you think compliance in the industries you listed is not extremely costly? In every case you see companies doing what they can to shed cost and risk, local compliance being one of them. FB should follow the law but the government will have to make the cost of noncompliance higher than compliance for it to happen.

msbarnett 4y ago

> If they had to comply with local law in every area they operate ...then they would be on a level playing field with everybody else. The alternative ("we don't care for some of these laws in some places we operate, so we decline to follow them") is what is generally referred to as a criminal enterprise.

munk-a 4y ago
Precisely this - not everything scales gracefully to "big data" levels - some things require lots of customization and edgecases - sometimes for dumb reasons sometimes not. Given the effect Facebook has had on radicalization I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  But it’s not even that hard for large organizations to comply with local rules like that. They just can’t be bothered apparently.
- hedgehog 4y ago
  100% agree.
mszcz 4y ago
This a hundred times. Just because you're big doesn't mean you get to choose what laws or rules you follow. If it doesn't scale without rule breaking then, well, it doesn't scale. They have enormous resources yet bitch and moan that they'd have to spend some of them to follow the rules. Pff, I'd make a shit ton more money if I didn't pay my taxes or cheat people. How would that work out for me? If a 1000 (or 10k, or whatever) businesses in aggregate have a similar market cap and revenue to them while also following the rules then I fail to see how a single company has a problem with that. If it does then maybe splitting it up will make things easier...

_jal 4y ago

"Compliance is hard" is not an excuse accepted anywhere. But just in case you actually believe this should be convincing, consider how many tax jurisdictions Facebook does business in. Do you think they just ignore all those local rules?

wang_li 4y ago
> "Compliance is hard" is not an excuse accepted anywhere. Happens in government without any repercussions all the time. Washington state took ten years after being ordered by the state Supreme Court to fully fund education to actually do it.
bombcar 4y ago
Facebook on one side "we can target your ads so specially that you can narrow down to a given city block" and to regulators "we can't narrow down closer than "United States" when complying with laws, sorry".
hedgehog 4y ago
I believe they should be forced to comply by whatever means we have and the liability should flow through to executives and senior employees.
rvz 4y ago
'X is hard' shouldn't be used as an accepted defense or an escape hatch as well either. Especially compliance.

klyrs 4y ago

The law isn't written to bend its will to multinational corporations who are making the world's richest people yet, somehow, cannot afford to follow the law. Nor should it be. If it isn't profitable to follow the cornucopia of laws regarding campaign advertising, then don't serve them!

sophacles 4y ago

If that were true, why we do we see global oil companies, global retailers, global restaurant chains, or global media conglomerates? Do you think Walmart doesn't have to deal with varying employment and product laws at the country, state, and local level for each of its stores?

hedgehog 4y ago
Do you think compliance in the industries you listed is not extremely costly? In every case you see companies doing what they can to shed cost and risk, local compliance being one of them. FB should follow the law but the government will have to make the cost of noncompliance higher than compliance for it to happen.