Facebook charged with misleading EU on $22B WhatsApp merger
arstechnica.co.uk
arstechnica.co.uk
Interesting they don’t call it a ‘social network’. ‘content ad network’ is more accurate in my opinion.
^1 I may be wrong
As per the law, ads and content-snooping don't belong on it.
The emissions excesses of diesel cars first discovered on Volkswagen were fined in the USA. Volkswagen is a non-USA company. The EU is still not taking action on the emissions because it is feared that that would impact the bottom line of the European car industry which is apparently more important than the health of the constituency.
http://gerbrandy.eu/dieselgate-report-co-rapporteur-gerbrand...
Now they're fines we should be proud of. Not like the pathetic smack-on-the-wrist fines they've dished out to banks and Google that they can earn back in milliseconds.
What I'm trying to say is: I feel there's a difference between a fine ("You're misbehaving, correct that") and greed ("You caused pain and I'm going to benefit here"). Most large-ish rulings in the US that ever reached me are part of the latter.
Then again, this is a matter of culture and might be fine (hah!) in the society that caused this and just look weird from the outside.
Does Facebook really have any plausible response other than "oops"?
Facebook REQUIRES your phone number when signing up nowadays (sometimes it asks a bit later - when you try to message peolple.
On Facebook Messenger, you sign up using you phone number.
On WhatsApp you sign up using your phone number.
I think it's pretty obvious that is was trivial to connect the two accounts.
That reeks of a very cheap excuse to just bash HN given the dramatic generalization you're throwing around.
This quote sticks out as a bit of an exaggeration regarding the difficulty of this operation:
"Notably, integration of WhatsApp's and Facebook's networks would require matching WhatsApp users' profiles with their profiles on Facebook (or vice versa). This would be complicated without the users' involvement since Facebook and WhatsApp use different unique user identifiers: Facebook ID and mobile phone number, respectively."
However, after reading this I feel like the decision focused mostly on the possibility of Facebook merging WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger into a unified communications platform. This feels different to me than merging user-ids over platforms to improve targeted ads. But IANAL, and there are probably documents that I have missed.
A really basic query that will give you all the fb users who have listed their phone number.
Also i just realized while typing this, i think fb started allowing logging in using your phone number around the time they bought whatsapp. So even the profiles that didn't give their phone number to fb, they could get it via this logging system. ( I guess i was a victim of that)
You could also complement it with phone numbers of people with 2FA enabled.
Not saying FB could not join the tables given how much data they have, but it is not nearly as simple as this.
They can get phone number from users who use their phone number to log in but not have listed it in their profile (me), people who have enabled 2FA or from messenger. It's just a simple sql join. Ofcourse not at FB scale but this is me thinking about this problem for 10 seconds and also i'm in probably not even as intelligent as the dumbest guy working at fb.
The only use for my phone number is registering for stuff like WhatsApp. Why would I want one if not for stuff like that?
(note: talking about the number itself, not a smartphone. I use a smartphone for lots of other stuff)
And you're basing this on... what? Facebook nags you EVERY TIME you login for your phone number. EVERY TIME. I can tell you every last one of my friends who is non-technical has put in their phone number simply to get rid of the nag message. While my evidence is anecdotal, it flies in the face of yours. So I assume you have a citation for your "most users" comment.
I would be pretty surprised if evgen had same views if he wasn't working at fb.
For some time now, facebook has been requiring a phone number to register. In some cases, they don't ask for one until you try to add people, or something alike. If you use Facebook Messenger (with no facebook account), you can sign up using ONLY you phone number.
This was just a plain lie.
As it turns out, not only did it happen, the software/tech to make it happen was already ready! That makes a pretty strong case against Facebook's intentions.
I actually would agree that it was in hindsight stupid because of Facebook's business model. Why else would they want to buy WhatsApp other than profiling and spying?
Ideally, we don't even want corporations to have such huge amounts of data on us but we're not on that level yet. We're still too ignorant on that one. More Bad Things (tm) must happen first.
> ... in which it is alleged that the free content ad network failed to disclose that "the technical possibility of automatically matching Facebook users' IDs with WhatsApp users' IDs already existed" at the time of the merger.
Seems like the issue is specifically about them saying they couldn't do it, rather than wouldn't do it.
Though I would assume that a 30 min consultation with any competent technical person would give rise to a dozen different ways in which it COULD be done... device/ad ids, emails, phone numbers or even just correlating geo data over some amount of time would all be trivial ways to relate the two databases together.
Yes, I was wrong, I thought the EU was told by Facebook that Facebook would not do it, while they knew it could be done.
We are arguing semantics though. If someone asks you wether you would commit a crime (e.g. murder someone), and you reply "I can't", and then said someone lets you pass, that does not give you a blank cheque to commit said crime. "Wouldn't" makes no difference here. If anything, "couldn't" sounds more authoritative because even if you'd want to, you argue you can't whereas the other one is solely based on trust. Regardless, arguing over that attempts to draw attention away that it did happen.
Second, we must not forget the EU is not asking a random stranger about it (or well, they were, see below); they were asking those with the know-how themselves, Facebook and WhatsApp.
> Though I would assume that a 30 min consultation with any competent technical person would give rise to a dozen different ways in which it COULD be done...
Competitors and customers of Facebook and WhatsApp were broadly inquired by the EU before the acquisition was finalised [1].
"[...]
The questionnaire inquires about what a merged entity could do with customers' data, and how that could affect advertising services, in particular the effectiveness of ads over both mobile devices such as smartphones and on computers.
"In your view, what would be the likely impact on WhatsApp and its user base if post-transaction WhatsApp… were to start collecting increased amount of data about its users (e.g. user location, age, gender, message content, etc.)?" the questionnaire asks.
It also probes the growing overlap between social networks and messaging services, as companies scramble to make the most advantageous possible use of consumers' data.
"Which of the following websites/apps in your view can be described as a provider of social networking services? Please tick as many boxes as you consider appropriate," the commission asks, before listing dozens of services including Flickr, Foursquare, Google+, InterNations, LinkedIn, Myspace, Meetup, Tumblr, Twitter, Skyrock, Pinterest, Ask.FM and Spotbros.
[...]"
If your argument is that the acquisition should've never happened there have been multiple points of failure, but its too easy to point it all at the EU (if not merely for the fact that they weren't the ones who broke the law in this instance). I don't know if the details of these inquiries are public, I suspect not.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-sends-questionnaire-to-rivals...
What astounds me the most, is the FTC doesn't seem to investigate tech acquisitions like other industries. Especially, when it seems there is a good indication choice is being removed from the market.
Although, I've seen a few deals structured in a way to make it seem like a smaller company is buying a larger one to avoid a review [at&t <-> SBC, Sears Holdings <-> K-Mart].
When it comes to thing like Internet service, it's not really the same situation.
Stage 1 - That doesn't make sense and will never work Stage 2 - They turned down $1b they must be stupid Stage 3 - It is a monopoly and needs to be stopped
Stages may vary but what remains the same is that nothing in tech is certain. Companies try really hard to create monopolies that will probably have anti-trust issues because the alternative is if they don't they will probably die (more so true after raising a lot of money and signing expensive long term office leases.)
From a longer historical perspective, nothing at all is certain. Take a look at the various office skyscrapers and stadiums in the US, the names change. Some of the giant corporations of 50 years ago may still be around in some form, but they are shadows of their former selves. The world changes fast.
That name is meaningless and generally just juvenile. It makes it hard to take you seriously when you do this.
This is also not an appropriate use of "sic".
> Although, I've seen a few deals structured in a way to make it seem like a smaller company is buying a larger one to avoid a review [at&t <-> SBC, Sears Holdings <-> K-Mart].
Smaller companies buying larger companies don't skip regulatory scrutiny. It's a fairly common practice to structure mergers this way, but not because it changes the level of regulator involvement.
This is not what's stated in the article.
I'm not even trying to be snarky, it just seems like every single thing Facebook is doing lately is tainted with misinformation, corruption and spin. Just endless spin and lies.
There is more to any group of people than what hits the news. (This insight is not limited to businesses.)