Of course they didn't. After you are fined 5b it's no surprise you go full on defensive. What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?
I'm no fan of Facebook but if they didn't stop the research they could be found guilty again for the exact same reason
Well I've never really been sanctioned by the law for anything significant, but I would imagine that if I was sanctioned by the law for something afterwards I would be mindful of that fact and try to avoid being sanctioned again?
But there's a big difference between me and Facebook and that's that I don't have a callous disregard for the law and well being of society.
I'm not willing to cut Facebook so much slack here. They very much do not want any independent public oversight of their advertising operations (e.g. they want to release self-congratulatory reports with numbers that lack denominators, and they don't want anyone to be able to call them on the BS). I think any invocation of the consent decree is likely just a smokescreen for what they really want to do.
This view isn't exactly _uncommon_ for such a large company that dominates their market.
If you remove the word "advertising" it might apply to pretty much _any_ company...
Society does not owe Facebook anything. Let them operate only via actions that are ethical and privacy-preserving, and if they cannot do so, then let Facebook die, and good riddance.
The people that run Facebook are vain, greedy, and utterly uninterested in the public good, but they are not stupid and are almost certainly aware of the existence of telephones and email. They undoubtedly understood that banning a public interest research group is a fundamentally different activity than banning advertising firms or other commercial actors, and had they been interested in actually following the law here this would have involved communication with FTC about what they should do in this situation. It apparently didn’t.
But maybe I’m just misinterpreting something half remembered from a Matt Levine column.
In those cases showing the effort that you are engaged in getting there helps, you make an interpretation and go with it, but you might need to change when there is clarity on the proper interpretation, banks are looking at what other banks are doing, external specialists are hired. But it still remains messy.
Don't you understand that the argument: "You're only guilty if you get caught" doesn't really resonate with most of the public? Whether or not FB talks to the FTC about certain issues has nothing to do with them breaking rules. This is not how the law works.
For example, I could call the police and inform them I was breaking into a house. I would probably get stopped and get arrested. The second time, I think to not inform the police about me breaking into a house. Does not informing the police mean I wouldn't be committing a crime? No, it doesn't.
I'm open to a discussion if you think the rules are too strict.
The FTC would like to be notified when FB is making a statement related to FTC policy so they don't lie. If they hadn't misrepresented the FTC wouldn't have a problem.
Facebook does X, which the Government decides causes Y amount of harm to society. The Government compels Facebook to fund independent research to verify this claim.
Independent research finds that Facebook does cause some amount of harm to society. Government uses that evidence to compel Facebook to act in ways that might reduce that harm.
Facebook agrees and decides to implement controls that might reduce this harm.
Facebook then wonders, “hmm why not just stop paying for this research, it’s actually leading to worse outcomes for us” and decides to shut down that research.
> What's the alternative? Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?
Maybe nothing that extreme, but certainly reasonable controls to operate in a way that’s verified by independent research as to not cause harm to society.
Exactly.
> Asking the ftc every single time what they should do?
You were so close to getting it.
Yes, that's exactly how a consent decree works.
Yes. That’s how the consent decree works.
Though it does tend to have fewer regulations than the EU, the claim that this settlement has resulted in no operational changes does not appear to be true.
> Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about user privacy.