Facebook reportedly fined $5B over Cambridge Analytica fiasco

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    teonycteonyc Posts: 20member
    JWSC said:
    Even for Facebook, that’s gotta hurt.
    Nope.
    At less than 1% of market cap, and about 11% of 2018 gross profit, it’s a mere slap on the wrist—especially since there was no requirement to change their fundamental practices, nor hold any officers accountable. This is why Democrats objected. To quote Democratic Rep. David Cicilline (R.I.), chairman  of the House Judiciary Committee, “The FTC just gave Facebook a Christmas present five months early."
    sphericronnlolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 35
    teonycteonyc Posts: 20member

    MplsP said:
    rob53 said:
    I'm trying to figure out why Democrats objected to the fine and/or amount. From what I remember about this fiasco, it was pretty clear cut what Facebook did and the way they abused all sorts of things. I'd like to know why each political party felt the way they did. 
    Yeah, I noticed that too. For a partisan split it was opposite of what you typically see. The reasons I can think of:
    - fine too big
    - fine too small
    - there was no other ongoing punishment or action to change the operations
    - they did it just to be partisan and vote against the republicans
    - they're totally find with Facebook's lack of respect for people's privacy
    - Mark Zuckerberg was a big campaign contributor.


    A simple search of any number of other articles (from Politico to the WSJ, to NYT) would have given you the answer: It was because the fine was too low. It was a gift and won’t do anything to deter future problems.  
    sphericronnlolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 35
    payecopayeco Posts: 528member
    teonyc said:

    MplsP said:
    rob53 said:
    I'm trying to figure out why Democrats objected to the fine and/or amount. From what I remember about this fiasco, it was pretty clear cut what Facebook did and the way they abused all sorts of things. I'd like to know why each political party felt the way they did. 
    Yeah, I noticed that too. For a partisan split it was opposite of what you typically see. The reasons I can think of:
    - fine too big
    - fine too small
    - there was no other ongoing punishment or action to change the operations
    - they did it just to be partisan and vote against the republicans
    - they're totally find with Facebook's lack of respect for people's privacy
    - Mark Zuckerberg was a big campaign contributor.


    A simple search of any number of other articles (from Politico to the WSJ, to NYT) would have given you the answer: It was because the fine was too low. It was a gift and won’t do anything to deter future problems.  

    The cost of violating the privacy of millions of Americans: $5 billion

    The cost of helping to undermine democracy: priceless
    sphericchristopher126ronnn2itivguylolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 35
    kimberlykimberly Posts: 402member
    kimberly said:
    JWSC said:
    Even for Facebook, that’s gotta hurt.
    You are kidding mate .. Facebook's revenue for the first quarter of this year was $US15.1 billion.
    What was their profit? That payment isn’t coming from the revenue. 
     Net income was $US2.43 billion. It would have been higher, but Facebook set aside $US3 billion for the FTC penalty.
    sphericn2itivguylolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    rob53 said:
    I'm trying to figure out why Democrats objected to the fine and/or amount. From what I remember about this fiasco, it was pretty clear cut what Facebook did and the way they abused all sorts of things. I'd like to know why each political party felt the way they did. 
       I second that.  I've been looking for reasons it was done on a complete party line divide -- and neither side makes sense to me:  Why would Republicans fine a company for helping to get Trump elected -- and why would Democrats oppose that fine?    As so many things today, it's upside-down.

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 26 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    ronn said:
    The fine is a joke, thus the Democratic members opposition. From The NY Times:

    But none of the conditions in the settlement will impose strict limitations on Facebook’s ability to collect and share data with third parties. And that decision appeared to help split the five-member commission. The 3-to-2 vote, taken in secret this week, drew the dissent of the two Democrats on the commission because they sought stricter limits on the company, the people said.

    There were calls for Zuckerberg to be personally liable given his role at the company and because a similar settlement in 2011 did nothing to curb Facebook’s bad behavior. Especially with no additional oversight. Suck lied to members of Congress when he appeared before them. The first poster is right: the fine is a fraction of what it should be 
    Thanks for that.   That makes sense.

    The ability to target and manipulate voting blocks could determine the outcome of the next election -- just as it helped to do in 2016.

    The refusal of FaceBook to take down the admittedly altered, FakeVideo of Pelosi showing her drunk or drugged is an example.  Democracies around the world have yet to figure out ways to deal with electorates being manipulated through multiple forms of sophisticated propaganda delivered by unregulated Social Media.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    hexclock said:
    leighr said:
    So who gets the money? All the people whose privacy was violated, or the government?
    The government, of course.
    OUR government
  • Reply 28 of 35
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    Good. This is what the Feds should go after these guys for: shady behaviors vis-a-vis user privacy.

    The rest, like the made-up antitrust violations, are pure nonsense.
    Not really. Several days ago, a fed judge ruled that citizens have the right to read politicians on the digital media platforms, because it is a public square. In this light, at least some of those antitrust violations are not BS anymore. 
  • Reply 29 of 35
    MplsP said:
    Nice start, but they should have added a zero.

    They should also start making the CEO's personally responsible for the fines. I can guarantee that things would change real quick.
    Exactly....Well said. Even that is too little for helping to destroy a democracy! FB, Google, twitter are the cigarette companies of '90's!'  :)
    n2itivguylolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 35
    payeco said:
    teonyc said:

    MplsP said:
    rob53 said:
    I'm trying to figure out why Democrats objected to the fine and/or amount. From what I remember about this fiasco, it was pretty clear cut what Facebook did and the way they abused all sorts of things. I'd like to know why each political party felt the way they did. 
    Yeah, I noticed that too. For a partisan split it was opposite of what you typically see. The reasons I can think of:
    - fine too big
    - fine too small
    - there was no other ongoing punishment or action to change the operations
    - they did it just to be partisan and vote against the republicans
    - they're totally find with Facebook's lack of respect for people's privacy
    - Mark Zuckerberg was a big campaign contributor.


    A simple search of any number of other articles (from Politico to the WSJ, to NYT) would have given you the answer: It was because the fine was too low. It was a gift and won’t do anything to deter future problems.  

    The cost of violating the privacy of millions of Americans: $5 billion

    The cost of helping to undermine democracy: priceless
    Yep, Zuck has to go
    GeorgeBMaclolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 35
    Until someone goes to jail for things like this then it's all just an entry on a balance-sheet and the cost of doing business.

    Dems would have voted against it for not going far enough, Reps are always on the side of big business, the Dems MARGINALLY less so.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,978member
    The scandal was from years ago.  Facebook doesn’t “give” data to outside parties.  That data is monetized on its own platform.  3rd parties do their metrics via Facebooks systems.

    The API which allowed them to extract the data is long gone.  Fine.. it was a breach, but all the rage right now is just typical hating for no other reason than to hate.

    Still waiting for anything to happen to those at Equidax, where REAL and damaging info was stolen. 
    gatorguyairnerd
  • Reply 33 of 35
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflocal said:
    The scandal was from years ago.  Facebook doesn’t “give” data to outside parties.  That data is monetized on its own platform.  3rd parties do their metrics via Facebooks systems.

    The API which allowed them to extract the data is long gone.  Fine.. it was a breach, but all the rage right now is just typical hating for no other reason than to hate.

    Still waiting for anything to happen to those at Equidax, where REAL and damaging info was stolen. 
    You oversimplify the situation.
    FaceBook released user data to be used by an organization known to specialize in manipulating elections -- which it did, apparently successfully, here in 2016.  Since then they have shown an openness to letting their platform be used by others to manipulate future elections.   Their refusal to take down the fake video of Pelosi demonstrates that.  To write off objections to that as simple " hating for no other reason than to hate " is bullshit.

    Social media outlets such as FaceBook have become leaders in spreading extremist doctrines -- from ISIS to the far left and far right.  The Cambrdge Analytica scandal was just the tip of that iceberg.

    While I agree that executives at Equifax need to be held accountable, that says nothing about Facebook and its actions.  That's just a standard "WhatAboutIsm" distraction.

    edited July 2019 ronnlollivermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 35
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,905member
    Let me guess; stock’s up?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 35
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    JWSC said:
    Even for Facebook, that’s gotta hurt.
    that amount is probably earned in a week. 
Sign In or Register to comment.