5 ms·

Misleading clickbait heading, article mentions that 4 years of blog content were blanket deleted and then randomly implies that certain tech issues were targete

Misleading clickbait heading, article mentions that 4 years of blog content were blanket deleted and then randomly implies that certain tech issues were targeted among all the other (also-deleted) posts. The posts in question are public and available here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog

ziddoap 2y ago
>Misleading clickbait heading In fact, the headline kind of underplays the significance -- everything in that time period was deleted! Including posts critical of Amazon, Microsoft, and AI Companies, among everything else that was deleted. >The posts in question are public and available here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog The deleted posts in question are not available there, because they were deleted. Blog jumps from December 2020 to March 2025.
- trod1234 2y ago
  Isn't this in violation of records keeping requirements?
  - sophacles 2y ago
    What about the last 6 weeks makes you think that has a bearing on anything anymore?
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      It's still valuable to point out that the crimes of this administration are crimes. They aren't going to stop doing them until they are stopped. But framing their crimes as expected implies they are normal and of no particular consequence. This one thing is, all by itself, worthy of impeachment and prison sentences for the people who abetted it. Add it to the list, and don't downplay even the small ones. If we're going to come out the other side of this every one of these violations matters and will need to be accounted for.
      - Galatians4_16 2y ago
        Can you please be more specific about which administration you mean? This investigating administration, or this investigated administration? They are both equally worthless to me, but I could be convinced to care.
      - jfengel 2y ago
        Out of curiosity, I wanted to see if there actually were any penalties. Turns out there are. Among others: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both A different section allows prison terms of up to 10 years, but only if the "market value" of that data is high enough. I'm not sure if this data actually has a market value, but it is still a legal requirement to preserve.
      - immibis 2y ago
        The mango in chief has literally just said the courts don't apply to him and it appears he's correct.
    - acdha 2y ago
      The part where they keep having judges reject the spurious arguments? People are getting rehired because Trump broke the law firing them. USAID was ordered to be reopened because they broke the law. It’s not perfect, or enough, but we should stand up for the rule of law rather than trying to score Internet points by cynically conceding it.
      - CursedSilicon 2y ago
        And then as the folks who were deported saw. They say "fuck the courts" and do it anyway America is in a terrifying end-game for democracy
        acdha 2y ago
        I’m not saying anything about this is good, but I do think there are a lot of people who think following the law is important and we can use each and every one of them. Blatantly ignoring the law is how they lose suburban middle class voters and we don’t need too many of them to flip elections.
      - trod1234 2y ago
        In many respects the rule of law was broken long ago through judicial activism. The whirlwind we face today is an inevitable outcome from the consequences of those choices. There are specific components required by a rule of law which are not met. It was conceded by past generations that still hold political power today as a cohort. Edit: Do feel free to not believe me and in doing so dig into the details and prove me wrong. A "rule by law" is the system that lacks the components required by a "rule of law". This former is the same as any totalitarian or fascist state. Given the time horizon of case resolution, when you can find more than 3 instances of failures relating to the judicial branch within a few years, in each court, where the components are not true, then its failed. 3 is sufficient to be statistically significant within a short time horizon. Not a pleasant thought, but neither is burying your head in the sand thinking it will be better that you not see something, while at the same time choosing to become meat for the hungry lion that you didn't want to see.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    If they've genuinely deleted them, then yes. If they're archived offline, then no, not necessarily. But they'd be on the hook for being able to reply to a FOIA request in a timely manner, and I'd bet dollars to donuts they didn't even try to verify if backups were made.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      If you're willing to potentially make an enemy, opening such a FOIA request might be worth doing.
      - jonas21 2y ago
        Why? If you want to read the old blog posts, you can find them at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20250122132931/https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog https://web.archive.org/web/20250122132931/https://www.ftc.g...
        Loughla 2y ago
        Because the Internet archive isn't under a legal obligation to prove they have public documents available for the people who pay taxes. It's not about just reading them, it's about being sure they're not trying to erase public information that they should have.
        jonas21 2y ago
        A FOIA request won't make them put the blog posts back up. They just have to provide you with a copy. And they can charge a fee to cover the cost of doing this. So, given that the posts are already publicly available, it seems like a waste of your time and money.
        jfengel 2y ago
        If they can't do it, you can try to interest a US Attorney in charging them with a crime. It won't work, but at least you could say you tried to apply the law. That's worth something.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  Erasing history is an important tool in normalizing the (current, and many more planned) authoritarian abused of the Trump regime.
robotnikman 2y ago
[flagged]
- ziddoap 2y ago
  The fact that they deleted everything over a 4 year period instead of just a subset made you less angry? Would you mind explaining why?
  - fn-mote 2y ago
    Because it's not particularly targeted to benefit certain companies.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      It benefits companies who broke the rules more.
  - _--__--__ 2y ago
    What if the article was titled __FTC Removes Posts Critical of Kroger, Albertsons__? That is an alternative that is as accurate as the current one and sends a very different message. Telling a selective subset of the truth is just a barely clever form of lying.
    - ziddoap 2y ago
      It's crazy to me that you seem more angry about a headline than the fact that 4 years of public government data was deleted. To answer your question, your hypothetical title would have me feeling exactly the same as I do now: angry that the data was deleted.
      - _--__--__ 2y ago
        I never commented on the subject of the article because I don't come here to engage in political flamewars. I will continue not to comment on it, but rest assured that you have absolutely no idea what I am angry about. Having engagement driven clickbait on the front page is bad for the entire site.
croes 2y ago
Delete everything is a good cover up if just want to delete certain posts but don’t want to make it too obvious

ziddoap 2y ago

>Misleading clickbait heading In fact, the headline kind of underplays the significance -- everything in that time period was deleted! Including posts critical of Amazon, Microsoft, and AI Companies, among everything else that was deleted. >The posts in question are public and available here: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog The deleted posts in question are not available there, because they were deleted. Blog jumps from December 2020 to March 2025.

trod1234 2y ago
Isn't this in violation of records keeping requirements?
- sophacles 2y ago
  What about the last 6 weeks makes you think that has a bearing on anything anymore?
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    It's still valuable to point out that the crimes of this administration are crimes. They aren't going to stop doing them until they are stopped. But framing their crimes as expected implies they are normal and of no particular consequence. This one thing is, all by itself, worthy of impeachment and prison sentences for the people who abetted it. Add it to the list, and don't downplay even the small ones. If we're going to come out the other side of this every one of these violations matters and will need to be accounted for.
    - Galatians4_16 2y ago
      Can you please be more specific about which administration you mean? This investigating administration, or this investigated administration? They are both equally worthless to me, but I could be convinced to care.
    - jfengel 2y ago
      Out of curiosity, I wanted to see if there actually were any penalties. Turns out there are. Among others: Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both A different section allows prison terms of up to 10 years, but only if the "market value" of that data is high enough. I'm not sure if this data actually has a market value, but it is still a legal requirement to preserve.
    - immibis 2y ago
      The mango in chief has literally just said the courts don't apply to him and it appears he's correct.
  - acdha 2y ago
    The part where they keep having judges reject the spurious arguments? People are getting rehired because Trump broke the law firing them. USAID was ordered to be reopened because they broke the law. It’s not perfect, or enough, but we should stand up for the rule of law rather than trying to score Internet points by cynically conceding it.
    - CursedSilicon 2y ago
      And then as the folks who were deported saw. They say "fuck the courts" and do it anyway America is in a terrifying end-game for democracy
      - acdha 2y ago
        I’m not saying anything about this is good, but I do think there are a lot of people who think following the law is important and we can use each and every one of them. Blatantly ignoring the law is how they lose suburban middle class voters and we don’t need too many of them to flip elections.
    - trod1234 2y ago
      In many respects the rule of law was broken long ago through judicial activism. The whirlwind we face today is an inevitable outcome from the consequences of those choices. There are specific components required by a rule of law which are not met. It was conceded by past generations that still hold political power today as a cohort. Edit: Do feel free to not believe me and in doing so dig into the details and prove me wrong. A "rule by law" is the system that lacks the components required by a "rule of law". This former is the same as any totalitarian or fascist state. Given the time horizon of case resolution, when you can find more than 3 instances of failures relating to the judicial branch within a few years, in each court, where the components are not true, then its failed. 3 is sufficient to be statistically significant within a short time horizon. Not a pleasant thought, but neither is burying your head in the sand thinking it will be better that you not see something, while at the same time choosing to become meat for the hungry lion that you didn't want to see.
- jfengel 2y ago
  If they've genuinely deleted them, then yes. If they're archived offline, then no, not necessarily. But they'd be on the hook for being able to reply to a FOIA request in a timely manner, and I'd bet dollars to donuts they didn't even try to verify if backups were made.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    If you're willing to potentially make an enemy, opening such a FOIA request might be worth doing.
    - jonas21 2y ago
      Why? If you want to read the old blog posts, you can find them at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20250122132931/https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog https://web.archive.org/web/20250122132931/https://www.ftc.g...
      - Loughla 2y ago
        Because the Internet archive isn't under a legal obligation to prove they have public documents available for the people who pay taxes. It's not about just reading them, it's about being sure they're not trying to erase public information that they should have.
        jonas21 2y ago
        A FOIA request won't make them put the blog posts back up. They just have to provide you with a copy. And they can charge a fee to cover the cost of doing this. So, given that the posts are already publicly available, it seems like a waste of your time and money.
        jfengel 2y ago
        If they can't do it, you can try to interest a US Attorney in charging them with a crime. It won't work, but at least you could say you tried to apply the law. That's worth something.
dragonwriter 2y ago
Erasing history is an important tool in normalizing the (current, and many more planned) authoritarian abused of the Trump regime.

robotnikman 2y ago

[flagged]

ziddoap 2y ago
The fact that they deleted everything over a 4 year period instead of just a subset made you less angry? Would you mind explaining why?
- fn-mote 2y ago
  Because it's not particularly targeted to benefit certain companies.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    It benefits companies who broke the rules more.
- _--__--__ 2y ago
  What if the article was titled __FTC Removes Posts Critical of Kroger, Albertsons__? That is an alternative that is as accurate as the current one and sends a very different message. Telling a selective subset of the truth is just a barely clever form of lying.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    It's crazy to me that you seem more angry about a headline than the fact that 4 years of public government data was deleted. To answer your question, your hypothetical title would have me feeling exactly the same as I do now: angry that the data was deleted.
    - _--__--__ 2y ago
      I never commented on the subject of the article because I don't come here to engage in political flamewars. I will continue not to comment on it, but rest assured that you have absolutely no idea what I am angry about. Having engagement driven clickbait on the front page is bad for the entire site.

croes 2y ago

Delete everything is a good cover up if just want to delete certain posts but don’t want to make it too obvious