Hacker News Reader

Comment by dustinmoris | Hacker News Reader

> F.T.C. officials, who spent the past year investigating whether Facebook violated the 2011 agreement, are now weighing the sharing deals as they negotiate a possible multibillion-dollar fine. That would be the largest such penalty ever imposed by the trade regulator.

A multibillion dollar fine? That's great, but even greater would be to put Facebook's exces behind bars. A CEO shouldn't walk away with a stuffed bank account after years of criminal offences, violating the privacy of millions of people all around the world and then not take any personal responsibility for it in front of our jurisdiction. The fine is attributed to Facebook, but there also needs to be a heft penalty for the people who ran Facebook and that is the executive team. Jail terms must be given. In the long term this will set an important precedent and detract possible future offenders!

View on HN

>but even greater would be to put Facebook's exces behind bars.

What is with this place wanting to throw everyone in prison? Is there some thrill you get from seeing executives in an orange jumper?

Fines can be far more beneficial to society. Make them pay in a way that actually helps other people.

Because fines are rarely proportional to income, and are frequently written off as the cost of doing business.

schadenfreude

Fines can be far more beneficial to society.

It's not an either/or. You can be sentenced with both a fine and jail time. Plus, I feel like the goal here should be stopping illegal activity (should this investigation find something, of course), and I think jail time would be more of a deterrent than a fine. Plus, we already have a system in place for corporations to benefit society from the earnings society lets them make: taxes.

Fines simplify criminal behavior down to a "business decision." Is the extra revenue to be made minus the fine still profitable? If so, it makes sense to break the law. Often it is, because fines don't tend to scale with the size of the company they're levied against.

Start putting executives in jail, and behavior will actually change. Isn't that the desired goal?

People are exasperated with bad actors being allowed to set the common trust on fire with gasoline. For example, if this story were about a smaller dev they would probably be prosecuted for credit card fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18995823. Fines so far have not caused that to stop, so now the mob is asking for blood. Try to take it as an indicator of how desperate and frustrated people are, rather than a fetish.

Moral indignation is the new chic

Better to just let people get away with whatever they want, right?

I mean, as long as the crime made a lot of money, it can't really be a crime, surely?

It's better to be rational about creating the right incentives to prevent socially damaging behavior rather than stoking moral indignation disconnected from any semblance of benefit to society. How the left became the torch-bearers for unreflective moral indignation and retributivism is beyond me.

I think it's not only moral indignation. It's a feeling that fines are not working. Since fines are not working, maybe prison would.

If you make the fine large enough to actually matter, it would probably affect people working at the company who had nothing to do with the illegal activity. So maybe you should figure out who said 'OK' to the stuff, and who implemented it, and then put them in prison. Maybe then other companies won't do similar things.

I don't know if it would work, but the sentiment doesn't necessarily come from moral indignation or "retributivism".

There's plenty of glee in this thread at the prospect of MZ facing jail time. That's the retributivism I'm referring to.

As far as fines being incentives, if the fine is large enough it will work. Make it so shareholders feel the pain and the board will hold the executives accountable. Then you'll get the necessary feedback to curb these actions.

> It's better to be rational about creating the right incentives to prevent socially damaging behavior rather than stoking moral indignation disconnected from any semblance of benefit to society.

I hope you apply the same rubric to shoplifting, drug posession, and the dozens of other non-violent crimes that get people put in jail regularly. Otherwise this is just a justification for keeping power unaccountable.

Absolutely. I think free will is a terrible concept that only serves to justify our retributive tendencies. Our entire approach to criminal justice needs an overhaul.

>the right incentives

Like, say, not going to prison? You know, the main incentive used for regular people? Just spitballing here.

Fines are absorbed as a cost of doing business and are not a disincentive.

Jail. Jail for a looooong time. Only in negatively and significantly affecting the life or lives of those responsible will there be adequate justice.

Better question is, what is it with HN and rallying to the defense of unethical and illegal business practices?

>Is there some thrill you get from seeing executives in an orange jumper?

Criminals. The word you're looking for is criminals. And yes, most people like seeing criminals in an orange jumper.

I think it comes down to real versus symbolic consequences and anthropomorphising non persons (Here, person in common language is constrained to individual Homo sapiens NCBITaxon:9606) The non corporeal entity in question can not be put in an orange jumpsuit and the fine if large enough could have an actual impact. However a number on a ledger does nothing to satisfy a human perception of justice served.

To me the answer is; do both.

People convicted of insider trading get prison sentences. Was theirs a violent crime? No. Did they cause a recession, harming thousands of people? No.

They're sent to prison because it has a deterrent effect, in an industry where insider trading is easily accomplished by also hard to prove in court.

Same goes here. The public has no ability to audit FB's data collection and sharing practices. We simply have to take their word for it when they announce a new "privacy-focused Facebook".

If prosecutors can find a criminal charge that sticks, any conviction should lead to jail time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiyfwZVAzGw

>Fines can be far more beneficial to society. Make them pay in a way that actually helps other people.

How exactly?

What specific charges can be filed against him? What laws have Facebook broken?

I suspect FB have broken many laws but perhaps the country simply has inadequate consumer protection.

Advocating for jail terms without specific charges is not the direction to go.

What laws have Facebook broken?

The article very clearly states that there is a criminal investigation going on.

Right. So people in the thread advocating 3-5 years of prison for someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime is outrageous.

> So people in the thread advocating 3-5 years of prison for someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime is outrageous.

I don't see how its outrageous. We're (probably) not judges and we're not likely to be on the jury either. This kind of "I hope he goes to jail for a million years" posturing is quite common when people discuss any sort of criminal behaviour.

Is it beneficial or just? Perhaps not. But it's so natural that calling it "outrageous" is quite a reach.

Which Facebook exec(s) would you put behind bars and for how long?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com