5 ms·

When do I get my 46.6 dollars or even better my 933 dollars if we only look at active Facebook users either way it still seems like a great deal price for every

When do I get my 46.6 dollars or even better my 933 dollars if we only look at active Facebook users either way it still seems like a great deal price for everyone's biometrics.

the_sleaze_ 2y ago
Undoubtedly a great price. At times like this I'd like to see the entire extent of the profits split up among the plaintiffs. > “Wherever I'm going, I'll be there to apply the formula. I'll keep the secret intact. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall? You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.”
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  The Coase equation.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  People always quote this like the company is doing something disreputable, but that's exactly what you want them to do as long as the cost of the lawsuits accurately represent the amount of the harm. Recalling a hundred million cars at the cost of a hundred billion dollars because there is a 0.5% chance that one person across the entire hundred million could die is the wrong choice. Otherwise all products would have to be recalled continuously, because nothing is perfectly safe. Example: Many cars have been sold without lane departure warning systems, even though that could cause some people to die. Should they all be recalled? The equation above is how you calculate the cutoff for whether to do the recall. What would you propose that they do instead?
  - the_sleaze_ 2y ago
    > as long as the cost of the lawsuits accurately represent the amount of the harm > nothing is perfectly safe > Should they all be recalled? My flippant quote from "Fight Club" isn't a great starting point - let me flush out my opinion a bit. I believe that the types of judgements we're talking about here are not ambulance-chaser-type awards for a claimant proportional to the injury but actually punitive in nature towards the business entity itself. GiantTechCorp isn't paying Alice 40 bucks because she's injured by losing her data, they're paying 10 billion as punishment to not do it [get caught] again. If the punishment doesn't incentivize the company not to reoffend, we need to change it until it does. This is my fundamental issue. 1% net profits as a punishment? Please.
al_borland 2y ago
These penalties need to be much higher if we're going to hope for any change in behavior. Maybe every state should sue, so it would be $70B. Of course that still doesn't make a dent when Meta's market cap is $1.174 T. It's a rounding error.
- conductr 2y ago
  The penalty would be greater if they continued violating. First time penalties should probably work that way. However, there needs to be a 3 strike rule or something similar, where penalties of any type by the same entity grow exponentially and ultimately you get banned from operating. Status quo is a series of slaps on the wrists for differing infractions. It just trains them to hide their wrongdoing better.

When do I get my 46.6 dollars or even better my 933 dollars if we only look at active Facebook users either way it still seems like a great deal price for everyone's biometrics.

the_sleaze_ 2y ago

Undoubtedly a great price. At times like this I'd like to see the entire extent of the profits split up among the plaintiffs. > “Wherever I'm going, I'll be there to apply the formula. I'll keep the secret intact. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall? You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.”

singleshot_ 2y ago
The Coase equation.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
People always quote this like the company is doing something disreputable, but that's exactly what you want them to do as long as the cost of the lawsuits accurately represent the amount of the harm. Recalling a hundred million cars at the cost of a hundred billion dollars because there is a 0.5% chance that one person across the entire hundred million could die is the wrong choice. Otherwise all products would have to be recalled continuously, because nothing is perfectly safe. Example: Many cars have been sold without lane departure warning systems, even though that could cause some people to die. Should they all be recalled? The equation above is how you calculate the cutoff for whether to do the recall. What would you propose that they do instead?
- the_sleaze_ 2y ago
  > as long as the cost of the lawsuits accurately represent the amount of the harm > nothing is perfectly safe > Should they all be recalled? My flippant quote from "Fight Club" isn't a great starting point - let me flush out my opinion a bit. I believe that the types of judgements we're talking about here are not ambulance-chaser-type awards for a claimant proportional to the injury but actually punitive in nature towards the business entity itself. GiantTechCorp isn't paying Alice 40 bucks because she's injured by losing her data, they're paying 10 billion as punishment to not do it [get caught] again. If the punishment doesn't incentivize the company not to reoffend, we need to change it until it does. This is my fundamental issue. 1% net profits as a punishment? Please.

al_borland 2y ago

These penalties need to be much higher if we're going to hope for any change in behavior. Maybe every state should sue, so it would be $70B. Of course that still doesn't make a dent when Meta's market cap is $1.174 T. It's a rounding error.

conductr 2y ago
The penalty would be greater if they continued violating. First time penalties should probably work that way. However, there needs to be a 3 strike rule or something similar, where penalties of any type by the same entity grow exponentially and ultimately you get banned from operating. Status quo is a series of slaps on the wrists for differing infractions. It just trains them to hide their wrongdoing better.